JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Regional Transport Authority, Balasore, advertised for issue of permanent stage carriage permit for the route from Balasore to oupada via Nilgiri. Admittedly the Plaintiff Dulichand Khandalwala had permanent permit for four buses on this route before this date (20-2-1964), and none else had any other buses plying on the said route. The impugned permit was to be issued in respect of another bus to be plied on the line. The Plaintiff and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were the Applicants for the permanent permit. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the claims of the Plaintiff and O.P. No. 4 and allowed the permit in favour of O.P. No. 3. The Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Chairman, State Transport Authority, and the same being dismissed, this writ application has been filed. Parties are referred to herein as they are in the cause-title of O.J.C. 122 of 1965. 2. O.P. No. 4 had also filed an appeal which had been dismissed. He has filed O.J.C. 172 of 1965. Both the writ applications are against the same order and were heard analogously. 3. The only point raised by Mr. Parties are referred to herein as they are in the cause-title of O.J.C. 122 of 1965. 2. O.P. No. 4 had also filed an appeal which had been dismissed. He has filed O.J.C. 172 of 1965. Both the writ applications are against the same order and were heard analogously. 3. The only point raised by Mr. Mohanty is that both the Regional Transport Authority, and the Chairman, State Transport Authority did not keep in view the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (No. IV of 1939) Section 47(1), so far as it is relevant, runs thus: Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit: (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely: (a) the Interest 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 application from him for permits are pending; (f) the condition of the roads included in the propose droute or area; and shall also take into consideration any representations made by a person 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 of the State Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies: The question for consideration is whether the grant of permanent stage carriage permit in favour of O.P. No. 3 was in the interest of the public generally. 4. As has been stated already, the Plaintiff had already four buses running on the line which constitutes a total distance of 36 miles. 4. As has been stated already, the Plaintiff had already four buses running on the line which constitutes a total distance of 36 miles. Though he had better operational facilities and had his own garage and mechanics, both the authorities below were of the opinion that the grant of further permit in favour of the Plaintiff would create a monopoly and thereby would not serve the interest of the public generally. Law is now well-settled that it is open to the statutory authority to take into consideration the fact whether a monopoly is being created. A monopolist may be inattentive to the comforts and conveniences of the general public. Avoidance of monopoly is in the interest of the public generally. Doubtless, the Plaintiff was in a better position in comparison with the opposite party No. 3. if operational facilities and the financial position are taken into consideration. But no single factor is determinative and while arriving at the ultimate decision one has to see how public interest is furthered generally. An overall picture of the entire matter has to be taken into consideration, and if, on the whole, the concerned authorities are of opinion that monopoly should be avoided, the considerations are within the ambit of 47(1). The factor that monopoly should be avoided is, therefore, germane and not irrelevant to Section 47(1). See Sri Rama Vilas Service (P) Ltd. Vs. C. Chandrasekaran and Others, 5. Mr. Mohanty then contended that both the Regional Authority and the Appellate Authority have not given any reasons. The Regional Transport Authority said: There is therefore no justification for them to come up again. It was further considered that entry of a new owner on the line would afford scope for better facilities to the advantage of the travelling public. This is a very good reason on the basis of which the application of the Plaintiff could be rejected and the reasons are not foreign or irrelevant to the scope of Section 47(1). The Chairman, State Transport Authority, has expressed the same view in clearer terms by saying that a monopoly should not be created. We find no error apparent on the face of record. 6. Mr. The Chairman, State Transport Authority, has expressed the same view in clearer terms by saying that a monopoly should not be created. We find no error apparent on the face of record. 6. Mr. Mohapatra raised a preliminary objection that the Chairman of the State Transport Authority and the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority have not been made parties, and the writ application is not maintainable, as in case of success no writ can be issued to the appropriate authority. The Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority is not a necessary party as its order merged in the Chairman of the State Transport Authority; but the latter is definitely a necessary party as in the case of ultimate success the writ was to be issued against it. The writ application has also to be dismissed on this ground. 7. So far as the writ filed by O.P. No. 4 is concerned, nothing substantial was urged that any consideration in his favour was overlooked by the concerned authorities. In fact, he was altogether a new-comer to the field and had no bus of his own. His writ application is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, both the applications fail and are dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100 (Re. One hundred) in each case. S.K. Ray, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed