Judgment :- 1. The appellant was the 9th applicant for the issue of a permit on the route, Cannanore-Azhikkal which is a distance of about eight miles. There were a number of applicants. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the second applicant. The appellant, the 9th applicant, and others, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by a common order in the appeals set aside the grant of the permit to the second applicant and gave the permit to the 12th applicant. Two writ applications were taken, one by the second applicant and the other by the 9th applicant before this Court and Vaidialingam, J. dismissed these petitions by a common judgment in O.P. Nos. 1355 and 1689 of 1963. 2. This appeal is by the 9th applicant and two questions have been urged before us. The first point is that the appellant having made the application with reference to a specific bus, the decision of this Court in Vypeen Transport Corporation (P) Ltd. & others v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur & Others reported in 1960 KLT.1058 applied and that the appellant should have been preferred. The second point is that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal erred in granting the permit to the 12th applicant'as a new entrant' though the 9th applicant's qualifications were considered and expressed to be 'supreme'. 3. One of the reasons stated by the learned judge in the order under appeal for negativing the first contention is that this point does not seem to have been pressed before any of the authorities, the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. According to counsel for the appellant the decision reported in 1960 KLT.1058 fully supports him and the possession of a vehicle is a very relevant factor which should have been taken into account by the Tribunal and the omission to take a relevant factor into consideration vitiates the order and justified interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. Assuming this is so we still think that we should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned judge in refusing to consider a question which was mooted for the first time before this Court in writ proceedings. We therefore negative the first contention urged before us. 4. As far as the second contention is concerned we think the point is covered by decision. We therefore negative the first contention urged before us. 4. As far as the second contention is concerned we think the point is covered by decision. The Supreme Court has ruled in two decisions that it will be open to the Tribunal to choose a new entrant in the interests of the public. The relevant passages are in M/s. Raman and Raman Ltd. v. The State of Madras and others reported in 1959 S.C. 694 reading: "One view is that an operator who is described as fleet-owner will have considerable experience in the business and will be in a position to keep a work-shop and additional buses to meet any emergency and therefore he would be in a better position to operate the service without break and keep up the timings in the interest of the public than a stray bus operator. The alternative view is that encouragement of large viable units will tend to monopoly and the freedom from competition will bring about deterioration in service. On the other hand, new entrants and operators owning a few buses will have incentive to bestow greater attention to the public needs, particularly in view of the competition from others in the same field. That both views are possible is evident from the fact that the State Government had been changing its views so often on the subject, and indeed the cancellation of G.O. MS. No. 3353 of 1954, within six months from the date of its issue, presumably on the basis of the experience gained during that period, is a clear indication that in the opinion of the Government, encouragement of large units was not in the interest of public. If that be so, one cannot say that the Central Road Traffic Board acted without jurisdiction when it accepted the view that the smaller units would be more in the interest of the public rather than larger units;" and in Sri. If that be so, one cannot say that the Central Road Traffic Board acted without jurisdiction when it accepted the view that the smaller units would be more in the interest of the public rather than larger units;" and in Sri. Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandrasekharan & others reported in 1965 S.C.107 in these terms: "Speaking generally and in a broad way, we do not think it could be seriously denied that encouraging bus-operators who do not own a fleet of buses and discouraging monopoly on the route is consistent with the interests of the general public which is of paramount importance under S.47 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act." Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri. Jagannatham and Bros. v. M/s. Sowdambigai Motors Service, Dharmapuram and others reported in (1963) II SCWR. 199. 5. It is clear from the judgment in that case and the extract from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court quoted therein that what the Tribunal did was to choose a new entrant as if there is a rule of law that a new entrant should be preferred. This is the passage from the Madras High Court decision extracted in the Supreme Court judgment. "The Tribunal appears to have taken as a rule of law that new entrants should invariably be preferred as that would give them an enthusiasm and also surcharge the atmosphere with a healthy competition. But it forgot that in all these matters, the paramount question, to be considered was the interest of the public, and, in considering the question, it had a duty to evaluate the rival claims of the two operators." 6. We do not think that the above decision can be applied to the facts of this case. The 12th applicant was chosen not merely because he was a new entrant. In the light of the well-established principles of law which we have dealt with above, we are not prepared to say that the learned judge has erred in such a manner as would warrant interference by the appellate court. We dismiss this writ appeal but make no order as to costs. Dismissed.