Order:— This is a writ petition converted into a civil revision petition. When it originally came up it was admitted as a writ petition, but only on one ground. The ground on which the rule nisi was issued may be better stated to appreciate the contentions of parties. “There appears to be prima facie a violation of the principles of natural justice in that the appellate authority did not call for the history sheet of the 1st respondent even though it found that the records were conspicuously silent about it. On this point rule nisi was issued.” 2. Several applicants applied for the grant of a stage carriage permit to ply on the route Tuticorin to Pudukottai (via) Puthiamputhur and Ottapidaram. Amongst them were the petitioner and the respondent. The Regional Transport Authority preferred the writ petitioner after having found that the writ petitioner secured the highest number of marks and that he was otherwise also qualified under rule 155-A of the Motor Vehicles Act to the permit in question. On appeal by the respondent, the State Transport Appellate Authority set aside the order and granted the permit to the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved against the said order and hence the petition, which was originally a writ petition and later on converted into a civil revision petition. 3. As already stated, I am not at this stage obliged to consider the merits of the order, as in my earlier order dated 28th July, 1971, I made this position clear. As regards the only surviving ground on which the rule nisi has been issued, I find that the petitioner applied by way of an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 850 of 1971) and requested the appellate Tribunal to call for the lorry history sheet of the respondent as such transport operation was the sheet-anchor on which the respondent secured 1.98 marks. Curiously enough, the Tribunal, after having taken the interlocutory application file, dismissed the same purporting to rely upon a decision of this Court in W.P. No. 4304 of 1970. The complaint is that the ratio in the above writ petition has no application at all to the facts of this case and, therefore, the dismissal of the application to call for the history sheet of the respondent on any sustainable ground poses an error apparent. The complaint is that the ratio in the above writ petition has no application at all to the facts of this case and, therefore, the dismissal of the application to call for the history sheet of the respondent on any sustainable ground poses an error apparent. But the respondent’s contention is that at or about the time when the Tribunal dismissed the interlocutory application relying upon the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 4304 of 1970, the Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not pursue the matter and, therefore, the entire enquiry gave the impression that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for additional evidence. This is expressly denied by the petitioner in a reply affidavit filed. In the reply affidavit it is stated that the judgment in W.P. No. 4304 of 1970 referred only to rule 155-A (2) (ii) and (5) (ii) and these sub-rules refer only to performance as stage carriage operator and the petitioner did take an objection before the Tribunal that the said decision was inapplicable to the facts of this case. The matter therefore is in doubt. It has therefore become necessary for me to consider whether the principles of natural justice have been in any manner violated. 4. The scheme of the Act governing the grant of stage carriage permits obliges the Regional Transport Authority to have regard, amongst other matters, to operational efficiency of an applicant of other transport services. This is provided in section 47 (1) (e). When this sub-clause in sub-section (1) of section 47 is compared with the text of sub-clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 47, the distinction is singularly brought out. One of the matters which can be taken into consideration under section 47 (1) (c) is the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating in the field, etc. In juxta-position to this, the other matter provided in the same sub-section and which could also be taken into consideration by the Regional Transport Authority is the operational efficiency of the applicant of other transport services. The expression “other transport services” in section 47 (1) (c) naturally takes into its fold not only operational efficiency of passenger transport services but every other known transport service. Within this category obviously comes lorry service as well. 5. The expression “other transport services” in section 47 (1) (c) naturally takes into its fold not only operational efficiency of passenger transport services but every other known transport service. Within this category obviously comes lorry service as well. 5. If, therefore, an attempt was made by the petitioner before the appellate authority to prove that the experience gained and possessed by the respondent is really defective and inefficient, that as far as her operation as a lorry operator was concerned, it was not satisfactory, as is seen from the history sheet of hers as a lorry operator, then it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to consider the same in full and thereafter decide. Reliance was placed by the lower authority upon a decision of our Court in W. P. Nos. 4304 of 1970 and 223 of 1971 to dismiss the application to call for such history sheet of the respondent. After going through the same, I am unable to see as to how the principle therein supports the respondent at all. The learned Judges were referring to a factual situation, namely, that the Tribunal was inclined to think that the punishments were in re:pect of lorries and therefore would not be within the purview of rule 155-A (2) (ii) and (5) (ii). That does not mean that the learned Judges gave a ruling that punishments in respect of her transport services can never be taken into consideration at all either for the purpose of grant or for the purpose of preference. Rule 155-A provides three distinct and different processes to be adopted by the Regional Transport Authority while disposing of an application for grant. The first stage is to consider who, amongst the applicants, should be screened. Various disqualifications are mentioned in the body of the Rule which, if found to be applicable to any one applicant, it would result in, that applicant being screened. The second stage is to award marks, as prescribed in the Rule, after eliminating such applicants by applying sub-rule (2) of rule 155-A. Again, for awarding marks different qualifications are prescribed. The 3rd and the ultimate process in the stream of action is provided in sub-rule (4) of the main Rule. The second stage is to award marks, as prescribed in the Rule, after eliminating such applicants by applying sub-rule (2) of rule 155-A. Again, for awarding marks different qualifications are prescribed. The 3rd and the ultimate process in the stream of action is provided in sub-rule (4) of the main Rule. This contemplates that the Regional Transport Authority, after awarding the marks, shall rank the applicants in accordance thereto, but shall ultimately dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 47. 6. I have already referred to subclause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 47, which compels the authority to consider the operational efficiency of a transport operator’ with reference to other transport services as well. Therefore, in my view, the Regional Transport Authority or of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, are bound, if it becomes necessary, to consider such aspects and give a decision on the material placed before them. 7. The question is whether the failure of the Appellate Tribunal in not having given an adequate opportunity to the petitioner would amount to material irregularity or illegality within the meaning of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, under which provision alone the subject under consideration can be dealt with. The scope of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is now very well-settled. An erroneous decision on a question of fact or law no doubt does not mean that the Court which passes that order acted with material irregularity or illegality. The expression “material irregularity or illegality” in section 115 has a limited connotation. It means that the challenged order poses a problem about a material defect in the procedure adopted by the Court while dealing with the subject-matters or issues before it, and not to either of law or of fact after the prescribed formalities were complied with. 8. In the instant case there is a material irregularity or illegality because the Tribunal did not advert to section 47(1) (e) of the Act which casts an obligation on it to review the operational efficiency of an applicant in relation to other transport services as well, which includes lorry service. When its pointed attention was drawn to the fact that the history sheet when produced is likely to contain adverse remarks against the respondent, the Tribunal rejected the application on irregular grounds. When its pointed attention was drawn to the fact that the history sheet when produced is likely to contain adverse remarks against the respondent, the Tribunal rejected the application on irregular grounds. Therefore, it did not adopt a procedure which it ought to have adopted and which law compels it to do. It is in this respect that the order is materially irregular and illegal. 9. In the above view, the order impugned is set aside and this C.R.P. is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs. The subject-matter, however, is remitted to the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras to reconsider the above only issue, after securing the history sheet of the respondent in relation to her lorry services. The learned Counsel for the respondent says that he apprehends that the history sheet of the petitioner also is equally defective and he may be permitted to call for the same and place it before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection. The Tribunal shall notice the history sheets of both the petitioner and respondent in relation to their respective lorry services and thereafter decide in accordance with law. V.M.K. ------------- Petition allowed.