ORDER Bhave, J. 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of his permit No. P. St. S. 253/52 on Mandleshwar/Bhikamgaon route and granted a fresh permit on the said route to respondent No. 3. The State Transport Appellate Authority, Gwalior, rejected the petitioner's appeal by its order dated 31st May 1965. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority. 2. The Appellate Authority while considering the merits of the parties found the petitioner and respondent No. 3 on par on every matter except one. That matter is discussed by the Appellate Authority in paragraph 10 of its order. The same is reproduced here: "As regards providing facilities for passengers the respondent No. 2 has a booking office at Khargone, a place on the route. (Its claim to have provided various facilities and amenities at various places in the State, which have nothing to do with the instant route and so have no bearing on the operation of passenger transport services on this route, is not relevant). The respondent No. 2 is, therefore, providing greater facilities for passengers that the appellant can claim superiority on that score." It is plain from the passage quoted above that the Appellate Authority is of the view that the provision of a booking office amounts to a facility for the benefit of the passengers. In our judgment, this is not so. The provision of a booking office is for the convenience of the operator. It makes no difference to passengers whether the booking-clerk sits in an office or under a tree. No amenity is provided for the benefit of the traveling public by establishing a booking office on the route, or at anyone of the termini, and the provision of a booking office cannot be taken into consideration as a relevant factor under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Shri V.S. Dabir, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 invited our attention to a decision of this Court in J.B. Saraf Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority and others [Misc. Petitioner No. 382 of 1964, decided on the 19th August 1964], and urged on the basis of that decision that the Appellate Authority was not in error in taking into consideration the provision of a booking office as an amenity. State Transport Appellate Authority and others [Misc. Petitioner No. 382 of 1964, decided on the 19th August 1964], and urged on the basis of that decision that the Appellate Authority was not in error in taking into consideration the provision of a booking office as an amenity. In the case, relied on by Shri Dabir, this Court held the provision of a shed for the use of the passengers was a relevant factor to be considered. That decision cannot help respondent No.3. That a shed provides shelter to the passengers from rain and sun and is an amenity for the travelling public cannot be disputed; the same cannot be said with respect to a booking office. It is not the case of respondent No.3 that along with the booking office any shed is also provided for. In our judgment, the Appellate Authority was in error in holding that respondent No.3 provided greater facility for the passengers by establishing a booking office. 4. We have already indicated that the Appellate Authority found both the rival claimants on par on other factors. If the provision of a booking office is excluded from consideration, on the finding of the Appellate Authority itself the petitioner shall be on par with respondent No. 3 and shall be entitled to renewal of his permit as of right. The order of the Appellate Authority cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5. The petition is allowed. The order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 31st May 1965 is hereby quashed and the case is remanded to that Authority for decision according to law. Respondent No. 3 shall pay the costs of the petitioner. Hearing fee Rs.100. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.