Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O.P.No.1852 of 1962, a cooperative society, is the appellant before us. That petition was dismissed by Vaidialingam, J., by his judgment dated 4 9 1962. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, invited applications for the grant of a permit for the route Kozhikode Perambra Via Payyoli. As many as 19 applicants responded to the invitation. The appellant was applicant No. 1. 3. The appellant and applicant Nos. 2 and 11 secured five marks each at the evaluation of their claims by the Regional Transport Authority. The marks obtained by all the other applicants were less than five. 4. The marking was in accordance with the principles embodied in an order of the Government of Madras in the Home Department, G. O. MS. No. 1298 dated 28 41956. That the G. O. as such was not in force in this State at the time of the evaluation is clear from an order of the Government of Kerala in the Public Works Department (Transport B), G. O. MS. No. 938 dated 14 111958. That G. O. reads as follows: "The orders in G. O. MS. No. 1298 Home dated 28 41956 issued by the Government of Madras and enforced in the Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of S.5 of States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956) are hereby cancelled." 5. The principles embodied in the G. O., however, are still available for the purpose of evaluation. This can be gathered from a communication by the State to the District Collector of Palghat, No. 34204 58 PW TBI dated 23 11959, which says: "The Malabar Bus Owners' Association has now represented that the Madras G. O. already cancelled should be restored as otherwise there would be no formula or definite principles to be followed by the Regional Transport Authorities in the matter of selecting the parties to whom permits are to be granted. The sudden cancellation of this G. O. would also bring some practical difficulties to the RTAs regarding the procedure of selection among applicants for stage carriage permits. In the circumstances, I am to request you that the principles laid down in G. O. MS. No. 1298 dated 28th April 1956 of the Madras Govt, which has already been cancelled may as far as possible be followed in deciding whether a stage carriage permit should be granted or refused." 6. In the circumstances, I am to request you that the principles laid down in G. O. MS. No. 1298 dated 28th April 1956 of the Madras Govt, which has already been cancelled may as far as possible be followed in deciding whether a stage carriage permit should be granted or refused." 6. From among the appellant and applicant Nos. 2 and 11 the choice of the Regional Transport Authority was in favour of the appellant. Appeals were filed against the grant of the permit to the appellant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 7. Para.2A (5) of the Madras G. O. dated 28 41956 shows that a maximum of two marks can be awarded for special circumstances "like being co-operative enterprise, being supported by the public, being near existing services owned by the applicant or other reasons". Out of the five marks allotted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority one mark was under this head. In the appeals filed against the grant of the permit to the appellant the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dealt with this mark we think correctly as follows: "Then comes the head ‘special circumstances'. The applicant has been awarded one mark thereunder by the R. T. A. But it is not shown from the records on the basis of what factors exactly, the R. T. A. decided to grant one mark to applicant No.1 out of the total of two marks assigned for that head. Definitely one of the factors is the applicant being a Co-operative Society and another is this applicant's sector qualification. It appears to me that no other factor has been taken into consideration by the R. T. A. in awarding marks to the various applicants under this head. In my view, the R. T. A. appears to have given half mark to applicant No.1 for his being a Co-operative Society and another half mark for his sector qualification." 8. S.47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, deals with the matters to which a Regional Transport Authority should have regard in considering an application for a stage carriage permit. In my view, the R. T. A. appears to have given half mark to applicant No.1 for his being a Co-operative Society and another half mark for his sector qualification." 8. S.47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, deals with the matters to which a Regional Transport Authority should have regard in considering an application for a stage carriage permit. The matters enumerated are (a) the interests of the public generally; (b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken; (c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served; (d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service; (e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending; and (f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area. The sub-section also states that the Regional Transport Authority shall take into consideration "any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State, Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies". 9. There is a proviso to the sub-section. The proviso reads as follows: "Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over applications from individual owners." 10. It is clear from the proviso that the fact that an applicant is a co-operative society can be used only to tilt the scales in its favour when they are equally balanced and not for earning marks in a comparative evaluation as indicated in Para.2 A (5) of the Madras G. O. dated 28-4-1956. In other words there is a clear conflict on this aspect between the G. O. and the proviso. 11. In other words there is a clear conflict on this aspect between the G. O. and the proviso. 11. In the appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it was contended, quite rightly, that in such a conflict the proviso should prevail and as a result the appellant before us should be considered as having scored not five marks but four-and-a-half and thus eliminated from the competition as against applicant Nos. 2 and 11. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal said: "It may be noted that half mark out of five scored by applicant No.1 goes for his being a Co-operative Society. The contention raised is that the half mark granted to applicant No.1 for his being a Co-operative Society should not be taken into account in the instant case in his favour because of the provision contained in the proviso to S.47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939". and accepted the contention as correct. 12. It is submitted before us that the contents of the Madras G. O. dated 28 41956 form an integrated unit and if any portion thereof is opposed to S.47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the whole of it and not merely the offending part should be considered as inoperative. All that has happened is the deletion from consideration of one of the circumstances specified under the heading "Special Circumstances" and this need not necessarily produce such a result. 13. We are also not satisfied that the application of the principles of the G. O. is precluded on the ground that it constitutes an executive trammel on the exercise of a judicial discretion or on any of the other grounds suggested by the appellant. The G. 0. only embodies rules of guidance for the evaluation of the factors specified in S.47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and serves, in our opinion, only a valid, essential and useful purpose. It canalises an approach; it does not restrain any freedom or compel a conclusion. 14. We take the view that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was right in proceeding on the basis of the principles embodied in the Madras G. O. dated 28 41956 as modified by the proviso to S.47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and upsetting the grant in favour of the appellant. 14. We take the view that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was right in proceeding on the basis of the principles embodied in the Madras G. O. dated 28 41956 as modified by the proviso to S.47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and upsetting the grant in favour of the appellant. All the contentions of the appellant against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal have been fully discussed in the judgment under appeal and as we are in entire agreement with the learned judge who dismissed the O. P., it is unnecessary to go over the ground afresh. 15. The Writ Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.