Civil Appeal No 1407 of 1983
From the Judgment and Order dated 1121983 of the Madras High Court in CRP No 2978 of 1981
G Ramaswamy and section Srinivasan for the Appellant
ATM Sampath for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA J
Applications were invited by the Regional Transport Authority Pudukkottai in short the RTA  for grant of one stage carriage permit on the route Pudukkot tai Kottaipattinam the total length of the route being 70 kms
There were in all 15 applicants including the appel lant SV Sivaswami Servai and respondent No 1 Hafez Motor Transport firm
On 26101979 the RTA took up the case of all the applicants for consideration
The RTA rejected the application of respondent No 1 and some other applicants on the only ground that each of them had been granted one other permit in the same sitting and therefore the RTA did not deem it fit to consider their claim for grant of the permit
Out of the remaining applicants who were allotted equal marks the RTA found the appellant more suitable for the grant
Accordingly the RTA granted the permit to the appellant for a period of three years on 26101979
The respondent No 1 and some others feeling aggrieved by the RTA s Order in appellant s favour preferred the appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras in short the STAT 
By the Order dated 591981 the STAT set aside the RTA s Order granting the permit to the appellant and granted the permit in favour of respondent No 1
This led to two civil revi sion petitions in the High Court of Madras hereinafter referred to as the High Court  one by appellant and the other by another unsuccessful applicant
The High Court by an interim Order dated 2291981 stayed operation of the STAT s Order and directed that the appellant as well as respondent No 1 be allowed to operate on the route
Ulti mately the High Court dismissed 805 both the revision petitions by its Order dated 1121983
The appellant filed a petition for grant of special leave on 7121983 which was allowed giving rise to this appeal
By virtue of the interim Order of this Court the situation existing during pendency of the revision in the High Court has been continued with the result that the appellant as well as respondent No 1 have been continuing to operate on the route throughout obviously on account of renewal being granted to them from time to time because of this Court s interim Order
The result is that the permit granted in October 1979 for three years expired long back and yet not merely one of these claimants for the permit but both of them have been operating on the route all these years
It is obvious that the grant of permit by the RTA to the appellant refusing to consider the claim of respondent No 1 and some other applicants on merits solely on the ground that they had been granted one other permit in the same sitting is clearly untenable
The grant of a permit for another route to the respondent No 1 and some others could only be a relevant circumstance while assessing the compara tive merits of all the applicants but by itself it could not be decisive or sufficient to refuse consideration Of their claim
The STAT would have been justified in interfering with the RTA s Order on this ground and either remanding the matter to the RTA or considering the same itself on merits
The STAT missed this aspect even though it made a comparison of the merits of all the appli cants
Shri G Ramaswamy learned counsel for the appellant showed that the STAT has committed several errors in making the comparison which include a misreading of the past operational record described as history sheet  of the rival claimants
The High Court while deciding the revision petitions has also not proceeded on the correct basis
Shri ATM Sampath learned counsel for the respondent No 1 made an attempt initially to support the STAT s Order granting the permit to the respondent No 1 which was upheld by the High Court
However after some arguments both counsel made a common request to remand the matter to the RTA for a fresh decision on merits taking into account the comparative merits of all the applicants
They also requested that in view of the remand to the RTA for a fresh decision on merits no observations need be made herein on the comparative merits of the claimants or the merits of the rival contentions initially advanced to us
We are of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case this would be the appropriate course to adopt
We have however some difficulty in accepting the other common request made by both the learned counsel
Both sides agreed that there is necessity for two permits on the route and therefore we may direct that both 806 parties who have been operating on the route by Orders of the High Court or this Court should be allowed to ply their stage carriages on the route
Reliance is placed by them on M Chinnaswarny vs
Dhandayuthanpani Roadways P Ltd wherein a similar Order was made on the basis of an agreement of both the sides
The Order made in this case is a brief order based entirely on the agreement of the parties the relevant portion of which is as under It is represented by Shri MK Ramamurthi appearing for the appellant that from about 1960 for the last 16 years both the parties had been plying their stage carriages on the said route
Although the permit to be granted was only one but by orders of court or other authority both the parties had been allowed to ply their buses
It seems to be so obvious that in public interest if two stage carriages have been plying on the route for the last 16 years there is no reason to confine it to one
Both sides agree that there is necessity for two permits on the route
In that view we consider the dispute to be academic
We direct that the status quo of both parties being allowed to ply their stage carriages on the route taking appropriate permits from the authorities concerned will continue
With this direction the appeal is dismissed
 It was stated at the Bar that this decision was followed in Civil Appeal No 1133 of 1970 decided on 9121981 wherein the Order made is as under We have heard learned counsel for the parties and it seems to us that having regard to the particular circumstances of this case the order should be that which was passed by this Court in M Chinnaswamy vs Ms Dhandayuthanpani Roadways P Ltd AIR 1977 SC 2095
During the pendency of the appeal in this Court this Court made an order on April 21 1970 directing that the appellant and respondent No 1 should be permitted to ply their stage carriages on the route and ever since the order of 1970 these two stage carriages have been plying continuously under permits which have been renewed from time to time under the 
There is every justification for permitting the present situation to continue
In the circumstances we direct that the status quo shall continue and both the parties will be allowed to ply their stage 807 carriages in accordance with law under appropriate permits issued in their favour pursuant to the interim order dated April 21 1970 Recently a similar Order has been passed in Civil Appeal No 136 of 1980 decided on 1371990 which reads as under The authorities concerned will consider the case of the parties herein for grant of permit in accordance with law and also in accordance with the directions in the decision of this Court in M Chinnaswamy vs Ms Dhandayuthanpani Roadways P Ltd reported in AIR 1977 SC 2095
In the meantime status quo as on today will continue
Both the parties will ply their vehicles on the route in question
Counsel for both the parties are present here and they have no objection to the order passed above
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms
No costs
 With respect we are unable to accept this common re quest made to us in the present case
It is obvious from the above quoted orders on which the common request is based that in none of them any point of law was considered or decided and the Order permitting both the claimants to operate on the route even though the permit to be granted was only one was made without adverting to the legal impli cations of such an Order
In the first place grant of a permit is to be made primarily with reference to the object of serving the interests of the general public and it cannot be treated as a dispute relating to grant of a permit be tween the rival claimants only
It is not in the nature of a lis for adjudication of conflicting interests of private individuals alone It is therefore not a matter which can be decided merely on the basis of an agreement between the two rival claimants who alone out of several claimants remain in the lis at this stage
The question of grant of permit is to be decided primarily by the RTA having regard primarily to the interests of the general public and other prescribed relevant factors
That apart under Section 473 of the  the RTA is first required to determine the number of stage carriages for the route and then to grant permits according to that determina tion made earlier
Grant of any permit in excess thereof was not permissible without first making a fresh determination and increasing the number if necessary
It is therefore obvious that an order of this kind cannot be made unless the grant of a permit to both the rival claimants would be within the limit fixed by 808 the RTA at the relevant time
There is nothing in any of these above quoted orders to indicate that this aspect was even adverted to or that there was material to indicate that the consent order so made was within
the limit fixed by the RTA If at all the indication is to the contrary that a permit which could be granted was for plying only one stage carriage on the route whereas the consent order made had the effect of permitting two stage carriages instead of one
Moreover
if the claimants had the benefit of plying their stage carriages for several years on the basis of interim orders of the Court or other authorities long after the period of the permit had expired that does not appear to us to be a valid reason for perpetuating that act and confining the grant only to the litigants before us when claimants for the permit were many and are likely to be many in case the question of grant at this point of time is decided afresh
With respect we are therefore unable to accede to this common request and to confine the operation of this route only to the two claimants before us in a lis between them which commenced more than a decade earlier
Admittedly the applicants for permit before the RTA were many more and when the matter is to be considered afresh by the RTA everyone of them is entitled to a fresh consideration of his claim on merits
As already stated our inability to pass a consent order in terms of the above quoted orders is for some of the reasons already indicated
For the reasons given by us the above quoted consent orders cannot be treated as precedents for such a situation
Consequently the appeal is allowed the impugned Orders of the RTA the STAT and the High Court are set aside and the matter is remanded to the RTA Pudukkottai for a fresh consideration and decision of the claim of all the applicants for grant of the permit on merits in accordance with law
The interim orders permitting the appellant and the respondent No 1 to ply their stage carriages on the route stand vacated
However it would be expedient that the RTA decides the matter afresh at an early date and it also makes arrangement for operation of the route during the intervening period in accordance With law to avoid any inconvenience to the travelling public
No costs


Summary:
Clause a of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules 1968 makes every resident of the estate having less than ten bighas of land or having an income of less than Rs2000 per annum from all sources including lands eligi ble for grant of land in nautor
The grant of nautor land to the appellant teacher was set aside by the Financial Commissioner in revision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine
In the appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant that the word or  occurring in between the first and the second part of cl
a of Rule 7 has to be given its ordinary meaning and it cannot be read as and  that the two parts of the clause were therefore independent of each other and had to be read disjunctively and that he being eligible under the first part even though having an income of more than Rs2000 per annum as a teacher the second part of cl
a was not attracted
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD 1
A person who has got less than 10 bighas of land but has an income of more than Rs2000 per annum from all sources including the said land is not eligible for allotment of nautor land under cl
a of Rule 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules 1968
800G 2
The object of granting nautor land under the Rules is to help poor and unprovided for residents of the State
Considering the nature scope and the clear intention of the framers of the Rules it is necessary to read the word or  in between the first and the second part of clause a as and 
The two parts cannot therefore be read disjunctive ly
The second part makes it clear that an income of less than Rs2000 per annum should be from all sources including lands
800H 801A 798 3
The appellant s income in the instant case being more than Rs2000 per annum he was not entitled to the grant of nautor land
801A