Pandey J.- 1. This petition under - articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari an order of the State Transport Appellate Authority (respondent 2) dated 23 October 1963 whereby, in appeal, it set aside the grant of a stage carriage permit for the Burhanpur Dedtalai route in favour of the petitioner, which the Regional Transport Authority, Indore (respondent 1), had made on 29th March 1961, and instead granted the permit to New Star R.M.S. Burhanpur (respondent 3).

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, invited applications for a stage carriage permit for the Burhanpur Dedtalai route. The petitioner, the respondent 3 and 17 other claimants applied for the permit. By the order dated 29th March 1961, the Regional Transport Authority preferred the petitioner, which is a co-operative society, though it was a new entrant and granted the permit to it. Believing that the permit had been granted to Bharat Trading Industrial Transport Company, Indore, the respondent 3 challenged that order on 7 April 1961 when it filed an appeal which was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order. On 3 May 1961, the Regional Transport Authority sent to the respondent 3 an intimation of its decision. The respondent 3, which had applied earlier for a copy of the order, made a fresh application for the purpose on 24 May 1961, obtained a copy on the following day and filed it on 26 June 1961, when it was permitted to amend the memorandum of appeal by substituting as respondent the name of the petitioner for that of Bharat Trading Industrial Transport Company, Indore. As, indicated earlier, the State Transport Appeal ate Authority, by its impugned order dated 23 October 1963, allowed the appeal.

3. One of the grounds on which the order dated 23 October 1963 is challenged before us is that the Appellate Authority was in error in slurring over the adverse record of operation of the respondent 3 and in disregarding the principle accepted by the Regional Transport Authority that the creation of a monopoly is not in the interest of the travelling public. So far as the adverse record is concerned, the Appellate Authority duly took it into account and held that, despite that record, the claims of the respondent 3 were, on account of other relevant considerations, "vastly superior". The Appellate Authority also took pains to point out that there was no question of monopoly because there were several existing operators on the route. This is, therefore, a case where upon considerations relevant to the matter, the respondent 3 was selected on merits at a suitable operator. The Appellate Authority was competent to consider and decide which of the rival claimants was, having regard to the interests of the public generally, better fitted for the grant of the permit and, if it did so upon considerations relevant to the matter, there can be no interference in these proceedings.

4. Another ground of attack is that the appeal was barred by time. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the appeal has to be regarded as validly presented on 26 June 1961 when it was impleaded as a respondent and a certified copy of the order appealed against was filed. The limitation for an appeal under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, commences to run from the date on which the reasons for the refusal of an application are communicated: Dhanrajmal and Co. Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority, 1962 JLJ 714. In the instant case, the intimation dated 3 May 1961 [Annexure B] communicated to the petitioner only the fact that its application was rejected. The reasons for such refusal should be regarded as having been communicated to it when it received the copy on 25 May 1961. If the reasons be regarded as so communicated on 25 May 1961, the appeal filed on 26 June 1961 is admittedly well within time. It is, however, urged that the respondent 3 had applied for copy on 1 Feb