( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order, dated 30-8-1977 (Annexure-E), passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

( 2 ) WHEN this petition came up before a Division Bench of this Court for admission, a copy of the decision, dated 3-3-1964, in Dharam Singh v. R. T. A. Gwalior (Misc. Petn. No. 436 of 1963) was brought to the notice of the Bench. In the opinion of the Division Bench, the question that was raised was of general importance and of frequent occurrence and so it felt that the point deserved to be considered by a larger Bench. Accordingly, it has come up before us.

( 3 ) THE R. T. A. Bilaspur vide notification published in the Madhya Pradesh rajpatra, dated 9-4-1976, declared scope for grant of a stage carriage permit on route Ambikapur-Nandamali via Darima for one return-trip daily. Prior to this, the permit had been granted to Motor Transport Worker, Ambikapur, but it was cancelled by the R. T. A. vide order, dated 6-2-1976, on account of no-operation. In response to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner respondent no. 3 Shri Harbans Singh and the earlier permit-holder Motor Transport Worker applied for the grant.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid applications were published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra, dated 11-6-1976, inviting objections. In response to this, Messrs. Janta transport Co-operative Society filed the objections against the applications of respondent No. 3 Harbans Singh and Motor Transport Worker. After hearing all the parties, the Regional Transport Authority granted permit to the petitioner for a period of three years on condition that he shall ply on the route a vehicle of the model of 1972 or of a later year which he shall put within one year.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this grant in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 Harbans singh filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Before the tribunal the petitioner filed certain documents to show that the Motor Transport worker, whose permit on the route was cancelled earlier, was, in fact, a partnership firm, consisting of four partners, the petitioner being one of them, and that the partnership firm had been dissolved before the petitioner filed the application for the route in question. The documents and affidavits in this behalf that were filed have collectively been marked as Annexure-C. Besides these, the petitioner had also filed few other documents to show that respondent No. 3 was not a suitable person for the grant which have collectively been marked as annexure-D.

( 6 ) THE Tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to respondent no. 3 on the condition that he shall ply a 1977-model bus on the route. ( 7 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 in his return has alleged that the petitioner was the proprietor of the trading name "motor Transport Worker" which held the stage carriage permit on the route in question. It also has been mentioned that from the records, both of the R. T. A. and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, it is made out that the petitioner is the proprietor of the Motor Transport Worker. According to him, it were the lapses on the part of the petitioner in his individual capacity which had resulted in the cancellation of the permit. The respondent has averred that the documents marked by the petitioner as annexures-C and D were not submitted to the Tribunal with notice to him and no such facts as are being put forth here were urged before the Tribunal.

( 8 ) THE main grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was about the following observation in para 7 of the impugned order, dated 30-8-1977, of the Tribunal:-" no doubt, the respondent No. 2 had claimed the permit in question in his individual capacity but the fact has not to be ignored that he was the proprietor also of one Motor Transport works, who earli