Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1999 of 1962 is the appellant before us. The appeal questions the correctness of the dismissal of that petition. 2. The appellant was one of the applicants applicant No. 7 for two stage carriage permits on the route Peringottukurissi-Pollachi, an inter State route covering a length of about 44 miles. The appellant secured 7 marks at the evaluation by the Regional Transport Authority. Of these 4 were for making the appellant's service a viable unit. 3. Applicant No. 2 (respondent No. 5 and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 97 of 1962) received 81/2 marks. Of these 3 were for ensuring a viable unit. Applicant No. 3 (respondent No. 3) got 6 marks and applicant No. 9 (respondent No. 4) got 41/2 marks. No question of marking for ensuring viability arose in the case of applicant Nos. 3 and 9. 4. In accordance with the marks obtained the Regional Transport Authority granted one of the two permits to the appellant and the other to applicant No. 2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by the decision challenged in O. P. No. 1999 of 1962 and in this appeal, reversed the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. It allotted 4 marks to applicant No. 2, 41/2 marks to applicant No. 3, 21/4 marks to applicant No. 7 and 41/2 marks to applicant No. 9. And in view of the marks obtained gave one of the two permits to applicant No. 3, and the other to applicant No. 9. 5. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not allot any mark to any applicant for the purpose of ensuring viability. This according to the appellant was wrong and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has to be reversed on that ground. This is the one and only point pressed in this appeal before us. 6. The marking by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was in accordance with the principles embodied in an order of the Government of Madras in the Home Department, G. 0. MS. No. 1298 dated 28 41956. The provision in the G. O. for ensuring viability reads as follows: "After considering the statistics available and the reasons advanced, Government have decided that efficiency of service and economy in cost can be secured by fixing viable units of five buses. MS. No. 1298 dated 28 41956. The provision in the G. O. for ensuring viability reads as follows: "After considering the statistics available and the reasons advanced, Government have decided that efficiency of service and economy in cost can be secured by fixing viable units of five buses. It is accordingly necessary that, other things being equal, preference should be given to existing owners of four buses and less to build up to a fleet of five buses. These owners will have preference over other applicants in the ascending order. In the marking system therefore applicants of four buses and less will be given one mark for each vehicle already licenced to them. Thus the owner of one bus will get one mark and the owner of two buses will get two marks and so on to a total of four. This will enable the existing permit holders to build up their buses to viable units in preference to others who have more buses or none." 7. The words "other things being equal" in the second sentence of the extract are significant. They formed, quite correctly, the foundation for the refusal of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to allot marks for ensuring viability. When the marks without taking into consideration the question of viability were 4,41/2, 21/4, and 41/8 to applicant Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 9 respectively, other things were not equal, and no question of marks for ensuring viability can possibly arise. 8. The contention of the appellant is that the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1962 rendered on 17 91962 alters the position and compels marks for the ensuring of viability even in cases where other things are not equal. This is a contention which it is impossible to accept. 9. All that the Supreme Court said was: "We are unable to agree with the High Court that the circumstance that the appellant (Ayyaswami) was a small operator and so entitled to better consideration than the respondent, who was a monopolist, is irrelevant. As was pointed out by this Court in AIR. 1959 SC. 694 it is possible to take different views on the question whether a small unit or a large unit would be in the public interest. As was pointed out by this Court in AIR. 1959 SC. 694 it is possible to take different views on the question whether a small unit or a large unit would be in the public interest. Bat, if the view is taken, as seems to be the view of the Government itself in the G. O. mentioned above that public interest would be best served ay encouraging small operators to expand so as to have five buses rather than having big operators having more buses, it is certainly not possible to say that that is an extraneous or irrelevant consideration. The reason for this view that smaller unit should be encouraged to expand is the opinion held by many that encouragement of a large unit will tend to create monopaly and freedom from competition, which are likely to bring about deterioration in service. It is unnecessary for us to consider whether this reasoning is correct. But, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the circumstance which the Appellate Tribunal took into consideration, viz., that Ayyaswami was a small operator with two buses and deserved encouragement as against M/S Soudambigai Motor Service which had 16 buses, was an irrelevant and extraneous consideration." The Supreme Court did not direct that the words "other things being equal" should be ignored and marks for the ensuring of viability should be allotted even when other things were not equal. 10. The decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above is a clear authority for the proposition that the correctness or otherwise of the marks allotted under the G. O. is not a matter that is justiciable under Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution. The following extract will make the position dear: "In the first place, the Government order itself leaves it open to the authorities to ignore the marks obtained where the marking system appears to work unfairly. Assuming however that there has been a non-compliance with the provisions of the Government order, it is clear that that would not entitle the respondent concern to a writ of certiorari. In AIR. 1959 SC. 694 this Court held in respect of a similar order issued by the State of Madras that it was only an administrative direction and was not a law. A similar view was taken by this Court again in AIR. 1959 SC. 896. In AIR. 1959 SC. 694 this Court held in respect of a similar order issued by the State of Madras that it was only an administrative direction and was not a law. A similar view was taken by this Court again in AIR. 1959 SC. 896. In view of these authorities the learned Solicitor-General, who appeared for the respondent, did not challenge the correctness of the position in law that the G. O. No. 2)8 dated April 28, 1956 was also a mere administrative direction and consequently any failure by the Regional Transport Authority or by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal would not entitle the respondent to a writ or order quashing the Tribunal's order." 11. In the light of what is stated above the appeal must fail and has to be dismissed. We do so. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will he no order as to costs. Dismissed.