Judgment :- The petitioner, the 3rd respondent and 4 others were applicants for a stage carriage permit on the Neduvakad-Moovattupuzha route via Paingattoor and Kalampoor. The R. T. A. (2nd respondent) granted the permit to the 3rd respondent. 2. The correctness of the grant was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1st respondent) but without success. The first order of the Appellate Tribunal is dated 5-10-1957 (Ext. P2). Subsequent to that order the petitioner moved this court by O. P. No. 465 of 1957 and this court set aside the order and remanded the case for a fresh disposal. The order of the Appellate Tribunal after remand is dated 3-4-1958 (Ext P3). It affirmed the earlier conclusion. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons which induced the remand and the questions connected with them are not the subject of controversy at present. His main case was that one at any rate of the two reasons given by the R. T. A. for the grant of the permit to the 3rd respondent is unsustainable and so the grant as well as the affirmance of that grant by the Appellate Tribunal should be quashed by an appropriate writ or direction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 4. The reasons for granting the permit to the 3rd respondent are stated as follows in Ext. P1, the order of the R. T. A. dated 1-5-1956: "Sri P. I. Scaria is residing near the above route and hence he can manage the service efficiently. His services are not remunerative and hence the permit on the Neduvakad-Moovattupuzha Via Paingattoor and Kalampoor is sanctioned to Sri P. I. Scaria, Government Contractor, Moovattupuzha, to make his other services remunerative." 5. His services are not remunerative and hence the permit on the Neduvakad-Moovattupuzha Via Paingattoor and Kalampoor is sanctioned to Sri P. I. Scaria, Government Contractor, Moovattupuzha, to make his other services remunerative." 5. The material portion of S.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it stood on the relevant date, provides that: "(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in deciding whether to grantor refuse a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely: - (e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services and in particular of unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services" The order of the R. T. A. makes it clear that one of the reasons that induced them to grant the permit to the 3rd respondent was the belief that he was operating "unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services." It is common ground that he had only one service at that time and it is impossible to understand how in such a case he can be considered as a person operating "unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services." 6. When more than one reason is given for the grant of a permit it is not possible to say which of the reasons given really turned the scale and induced the grant. In A.I.R. 1943 F.C.1, a case under the Defence of India Act, 1939, the Federal Court said: "If a detaining authority give four reasons for detaining a man, without distinguishing between them, and any two or three of the reasons are held to be bad, it can never be certain to what extent the bad reasons operated on the mind of the authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them"; and in A I. R.1957 S. C. 164, a case under the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011, the Supreme Court said: "Where power is vested in a statutory authority to deprive the liberty of a subject on its subjective satisfaction with reference to specified matters, if that satisfaction is stated to be based on a number of grounds or for a variety of reasons, all taken together, and if some out of them are found to be non-existent or irrelevant the very exercise of that power is bad. That is so because the matter being one for subjective satisfaction, it must be properly based on all the reasons on which it purports to be based If some out of them are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the Court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the said authority would have been on the exclusion of those grounds or reasons. To uphold the validity of such an order in spite of the invalidity of some of the reasons or grounds would be to substitute the objective standards of the Court for the subjective satisfaction of the statutory authority". Both these decisions were quoted and followed in A.I.R. 1957 Calcutta 638, a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 7. In this case there can be no doubt that the belief that the 3rd respondent was operating "unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services" weighed largely with the R. T. A That belief of the R.T.A. being devoid of any factual foundation, Ext. P1 and the order of the Appellate Tribunal affirming the same (Ext. P3) have to be quashed I order accordingly No costs. 8. The 3rd respondent had more than one bus on a single route and it was suggested that each of his buses on that route should be considered as a separate service. Even assuming that such a contention is tenable there is nothing on record to show that the running of any of those buses was remunerative in character. 9. Apparently a claim based on the operation of "unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services" was not even made before the R. T. A. Para.5 (c) of the affidavit in support of the petition states: "The crucial ground depended upon by the 2nd respondent in preferring the 3rd respondent for the grant of the permit on the notified route viz. that 'His services are not remunerative and hence the permit on the Neduvakad - Moovattupuzha via. Paingattur and Kalampur is sanctioned to Sri P. I. Scaria, Government Contractor, Moovattupuzha to make his other services remunerative'. was not mentioned at all in the written representation filed under S.57 (4) before the 2nd respondent on 23-5-55"; and the correctness of that statement is not challenged before me. Allowed.