JUDGMENT
1. This appeal by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) is directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Patna, Ranchi Bench dated 10.10.1991. Sushil Kumar Vohra – respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for quashing the order of the State Road Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority’) dated 20.7.1991 granting one permit to the, Corporation on the route Hazaribagh to Calcutta for two trips daily in pursuance of a reciprocal agreement entered into between the State of Bihar and the State of West Bengal. A permanent permit was granted in favour of the Corporation by an order of the Authority in its meeting dated 16.1.1991 and signed on 22.1.1991. Against the grant of this permit, Shri Sushil Kumar Vohra filed a Writ Petition No. 311 of 1991 in the High Court. The High Court quashed the aforesaid decision of the Authority by order dated 12.4.1991 and directed it to reconsider the matter as per rules.
2. In accordance with the directions of the High Court, the State Transport Authority summoned 15 applicants for reconsideration of the matter. The Authority held that the representatives of the Corporation claimed to have presented two buses of 1989 model. The Authority considered the claims of all the other applicants and observed that the Corporation secured first position in order of seniority. As regards Shri Sushil Kumar Vohra, the Authority observed that he secured second position on the basis of the bus as well as other claims. Shri Sushil Kumar claimed to have presented two buses of 1990 and 1989 model. The Authority also considered the claims of other applicants and the models of buses available with them and ultimately held that the Corporation having secured the first position, it was unanimously decided to grant permit to the Corporation. This order was passed by the Authority on 20.7.1991.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court. The High Court by its impugned order held that the State Transport Authority was required to record all the facts which were found in favour of the Corporation for allowing its application for grant of permit. The High Court in these circumstances quashed the order of the State Transport Authority and remanded the matter to it for passing a fresh order. The Corporation has now come in appeal to this Court against the above remand order of the High Court.
4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant: Corporation that on an earlier occasion the Authority in its orderdated 22.1.1991 had resolved to grant permit to the Corporation after considering all claims and objections made before it by all the applicants.’ While arriving at the said conclusion the Authority had taken into consideration the interest of the public at large. The respondent No. 1 feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order had filed Writ Petition No. 311/91 in the High Court for quashing the order of the Authority. The High Court vide its order dated 12.4.1991 had allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. After remand, the Authority had again granted the permit in favour of the Corporation on the basis of the model of the buses besides other considerations specially taking in view the interest of the public at large. It was contended that there was no justification for the High Court to remand the matter for the second time for passing a fresh order.
5. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the Authority in its order dated 12.4.1991 after remand only noticed the fact in favour of the Corporation that it had undertaken to place two buses of 1989model. The Authority was required to record all the facts found in favour of the Corporation for holding that it secured first position in the order of merit for the grant of permit. It was thus submitted that the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order. It was further contended that the Corporation had concealed the fact of withdrawing the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11662 of 1991 on 31.7.1991 in this Hon’ble Court filed against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 311/91. It was also submitted that the Corporation also concealed the fact of the respondent No. 1 having filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12702 of 1991 challenging the part of the order in Civil Writ Petition No. 311/91. It was submitted that the concealment of the above facts clearly show that the Corporation had not come with clean hands and as such was not entitled to any relief from this Hon’ble Court. It was also submitted that the respondent was in a sound financial position and had run the buses on the route in question for over three years from 1985 and was rendering service to the utmost satisfaction of the travelling public.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. It is wrong on the part of the respondent to contend that the Corporation concealed any material facts from this Hon’ble Court. The Corporation in para 11 of the Special Leave Petition has clearly mentioned that it had filed a Special Leave Petition No. 1 1662of 1991 before this Hon’ble Court, aggrieved against the order of the High Court dated 12.4, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 311/91. It has been further stated that the said Special Leave Petition was not entertained by this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner – Corporation was permitted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 31.7.1991. So far as the Special Leave Petition No. 12702/91 is concerned, the same was filed by the respondent No. 1 challenging a part of the order passed by the High Court in Civil-Writ Petition No. 311/91 and there was no obligation on the part of the Corporation to make any mention of such fact as the same had no material bearing according to the Corporation. In these circumstances, we find no justification to hold that the Corporation has not come with clean hands or it has concealed any material facts.
7. According to the facts stated by the Authority in its order dated 20.7.1991, the Corporation had claimed to have presented two buses of 1989 model while the respondent claimed to have presented two buses, one of 1990 model and the other of 1989 model. The Corporation has submitted in ground No. 14 of the Special Leave Petition that the respondent had deliberately suppressed the copy of the registration certificates relating to the vehicle No. BR-14 H-253 and that if it were produced, it would have shown that the year of manufacture of that vehicle also was 1989 and not 1990 as wrongly claimed by the respondent. It has been further submitted that the Authority is therefore, after verifying the registration certificates and finding that the Corporation had offered the vehicles of latest models, gave preference to the Corporation over the respondent No. 1 as the Corporation was better equipped to cater to the needs of the passengers, passengers, which apart from the latest model had a fleet of buses to meet any emergency situation apart from the fact that it had experienced drivers, mechanics, engineers and halt age points with essential facilities which weighed with the Authority while granting permit to the petitioner. Ignoring the above controversy, it is an admitted position that the Corporation had two buses of 1989 model and the Authority after considering the claims of all the applicants had arrived at the conclusion that the Corporation secured first position in the order of merit in respect of the claims for the grant of the permit.
8. Apart from the above circumstances, even if other conditions being equal, preference has to be given to applications for permits from State Transport Undertaking in comparison to the private operatOrs. A reference in this connection be made to proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as under:
Section 74(3)(b) Where the number of contract carriages are fixed under Clause (a), the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for the grant of permit in respect of any such contract carriage, have regard to the following matters, namely:
(i) financial stability of the applicant;
(ii) satisfactory performance as a contract carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of contract carriages; and
(iii) such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government:
Provided that, other conditions being equal, preference shall be given to applications for permits from –
(i)….
(ii)……
(iii)…..
(iv) State transport undertakings;
(V) …….
(vi)…….
9. Thus, taking into consideration the above statutory provision as well as the other circumstances placed on record, we hold that the High Court was not correct in remanding the matter second time to the Authority. The route in question from Hazaribagh to Calcutta is a long inter state route and in case the State Transport Authority has granted permit in favour of the Corporation, there was no justification to interfere in such order by the High Court.
10. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated 10.10.1991 and uphold the order of the State Transport Authority, Bihar dated 20.7.1991. No order as to costs.