VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the quashing of the order dated 16th april 1987 of the Karnataka State Transport appellate Tribunal (for short 'the KSTAT') made in Appeal No. 776/85, on its file, by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. ( 2 ) ANTECEDANT material facts are : Thw regional Transport Authority, Dakshina kannada (for short 'the RTA'), invited applications under Section 57 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), respecting grant of a stage carriage permit on a Mangalore City route between Kodikal and State Bank for performing 13 round trips a day. The petitioner and respondent-3 were the only contesting rival applicants for grant of that permit before the RTA. , which awarded under Rule 104-A (iv) (a) and (b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), the marks as follows: sl. No. Name of the applicant place of business and residence sector bus and Tech. experience Total 1. M. Sadananda Nayak (Respondent-3)_4155 2. Larry D'souza (Petitioner)415 the RTA. , which found that the contesting rival applicants stand on equal footing as regards the marks obtained by them, preferred the petitioner for grant of stage carriage permit under consideration for two reasons, to wit, (1) he had a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route; and (2) he being an Ex- serviceman, could be trusted to operate the stage carriage service to the best satisfaction. The resolution dated 25th September 1985 of the RTA, by which the above grant of stage carriage permit was made in favour of the petitioner, was questioned by respondent-3 in an appeal preferred before the KSTAT. The KSTAT which heard the said appeal, found that the reasons mentioned in the resolution of the RTA for granting the stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner in preference to that of respondent-3, were unjustified. According to it, the fact that the petitioner was an Ex-serviceman was a consideration, which was irrelevant under Section 47 of the Act for the purpose of making selection of an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit and hence that should not have been the reason for preferring the petitioner to that of respondent-3 in the matter of grant of permit. Coming to the other reason that the petitioner had a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route, which weighed with the rta in preferring the petitioner to that of respondent-3, it held that the RTA could not have proceeded on the premise that on the date of its resolution, the petitioner had a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route. In this regard, it found that the representation made on behalf of the petitioner that he had got a ready 1985 model bus to be put on the route, was factually incorrect, by pointing out that on the date of the resolution, 1985 model bus, which was said to belong to the petitioner, being covered in the stage carriage permit held by one P. Bhaskar, was not free for being put for operation on the route. On the other hand, the KSTAT found that respondent-3's offer made to the rta to put a new bus on the route to be a genuine one. The KSTAT, in effect, concluded that the petitioner and respondent-3 stood on the same footing in the matter of putting a new bus for operation on the route. However, previous satisfactory operation of a bus by respondent-3 on the very route for which stage carriage permit had to be granted, was regarded by the KSTAT as a factor which demonstrates that interest of travelling public was safe in his hands. At the same time, the fact that the petitioner, who was granted a temporary stage carriage permit for plying his bus from 1-4-1985 to 31-7-1985 respecting a route - Belladagudda to Mangalore and back, surrendered it on 16-5-1985 and got that very bus included in the pucca permit of one Sri P. Bhaskar, which was valid upto 31-12-1989, was regarded by the KSTAT as a factor which demonstrates that the interest of the travellving public cannot be well served by him. Therefore, according to the KSTAT, on comparative merits and demerits of past performance of respondent-3 and the petitioner, respondent-3 had to be preferred for grant of the stage carriage permit under consideration. Respondent-3 had possessed an educational qualification, such as, Diploma in mechanical Engineering had also weighed with the KSTAT as a factor in preferring respondent-3 to that of the petitioner in the matter of grant of the said stage carriage permit. Respondent-3 had possessed an educational qualification, such as, Diploma in mechanical Engineering had also weighed with the KSTAT as a factor in preferring respondent-3 to that of the petitioner in the matter of grant of the said stage carriage permit. On consideration of the said matters, the KSTAT, by its order dated 16th April 1987, allowed the appeal of respondent-3, in which the resolution of the RTA granting the permit under consideration in favour of the petitioner had been questioned, and by reversing the resolution of the RTA, granted the permit in favour of respondent-3 with a direction that he should put a 1985 model bus on the route within three months. It is this order, the quashing of which is sought by the petitioner, as stated at the outset. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it was contended rather strenuously that the KSTAT had committed a grave error of law in taking into consideration respondent-3's two years satisfactory operation of stage carriage service on the route, for which permit had to be granted, as a factor for preferring him for grant of such permit when full marks of four had been awarded to him under Rule 104-A (iv) (b) of the Rules under the head of sector qualification. The thrust of his contention was that a transport authority, which awards marks to an applicant, who seeks grant of a permit for a route on the basis that he had a full sector qualification on the route, cannot over again consider his past satisfactory performance on the route as an operator of a stage carriage service as a factor in his favour. It was also contended that the kstat was also not justified in taking the fact that the petitioner had surrendered his temporary permit and got the stage carriage service for which permit had been granted, covered hi the permanent permit of another as a factor against him. It was further contended that the KSTAT should not have i taken respondent-3's educational qualification in Mechanical Engineering as a factor in his favour for grant of permit to him when the qualification in Mechanical Engineering is not equivalent to the qualification in automobile Engineering. It was further contended that the KSTAT should not have i taken respondent-3's educational qualification in Mechanical Engineering as a factor in his favour for grant of permit to him when the qualification in Mechanical Engineering is not equivalent to the qualification in automobile Engineering. However, the view of the KSTAT that the petitioner was an Ex-serviceman was an irrelevant matter taken by the RTA under Section 47 (1) of the Act, in preferring him for grant of permit, was not disputed on behalf of the petitioner. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, it was urged on behalf of respondent-3 that the quality of past performance of a stage carriage service on a route by an applicant, who seeks for grant of a permit, since directly bears on the matter "interests of public generally" required to be considered by a transport authority under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, while considering an application for a stage carriage permit, it cannot be said that the KSTAT had committed an error of law in taking such matter into consideration as a factor for granting a stage carriage permit in favour of respondent-3. It was sought to be pointed out that awarding of marks of four to respondent-3 for sector qualification possessed by him did relate only to awarding of marks for a subsidiary matter contemplated under the Rules and not for the main matter to be considered under sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act. It was also urged on behalf of respondent-3 that the KSTAT was justified in holding the fact of surrender of a temporary permit by the petitioner and having the bus covered by a permanent permit of another, as a factor against the petitioner, in that, it related to his past poor unreliable performance of a stage carriage service-a matter adversely affecting the interest of the public generally required ta be considered under clauses (a) and (e) of subsection (1) of Section 47 of the Act. Coming to the educational qualification of a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering possessed by respondent-3, which had weighed with the kstat as a factor in his favour, it was submitted that Mechanical Engineering since relates to basics of Automobile Engineering, it cannot be said that the KSTAT was not justified in treating it as a factor in preferring respondent-3 to that of the petitioner in the matter of grant of stage carriage permit. ( 5 ) IN the light of the above submissions put forth on behalf of the rival applicants for grant of a stage carriage permit, the points, which arise for consideration, are : (I) Whether the quality of past performance of a stage carriage service on a route by its operator, who is an applicant for grant of a new stage carriage permit on any route, is a consideration which should weigh with a transport authority under clauses (a) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, in evaluating such operator's application. (II) Whether satisfactory past performance of a stage carriage service on a route by an operator has to be excluded from consideration for grant of a new stage carriage permit to him on a route, if he is awarded full marks for the reason that he had sector qualification respecting the same route. (III) Whether the educational qualification in Mechanical Engineering possessed by an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit, cannot be considered as a relevant factor under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, in evaluating his application for grant of a stage carriage permit. POINT (i): clauses (a) to (0 of sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act enumerate matters which should be considered by a transport authority in evaluating the application of an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit. If regard is given to the matter enumerated in clause (a), to wit, "interest of public generally", it indicates the dominant purpose which has to be served by selection of an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit. Then, the matters referred to in sub-sections (b) to (f) indicate that their consideration whenever available, are also intended to make the choice of a best applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit. Then, the matters referred to in sub-sections (b) to (f) indicate that their consideration whenever available, are also intended to make the choice of a best applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit. While the matter b clause (a) refers to the matter of interest of public generally, the matter in clause (e) refers to the matter of the operation of the applicant of other transport services including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending. Quality of previous operation, if any, of a service by an applicant will be a matter required to be considered by the transport authority in deciding the application for grant of a stage carriage permit under the above clauses (a) and (e), in that, it is a matter which reflects upon the capacity or efficiency of an operator. Tested capacity or efficiency of an operator has to be necessarily regarded as a factor to his favour, if he is an applicant for grant of a new stage carriage permit. In dealing with the matters to be taken into consideration by a transport authority while deciding the application for grant of a permit under sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, it is held by the Supreme Court that the tested efficiency or superiority of an operator is a consideration which should weigh in his favour for grant of a stage carriage permit [see : Ajantha transports (P) Ltd. v. M/s. I. V. K. Transports- A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 123]. From this it follows that the quality of previous performance of a stage carriage service on a route by its operator is a factor which may go for or against him under clauses (a) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act in evaluating his application for grant of a stage carriage permit. POINT (ii): when an operator has operated a stage carriage service on a route, as held above, such operation while may be a matter for consideration under sub-section (1) of section 47 of the Act, it may be also a matter for consideration in deciding as to whether he has the sector qualification under Rule 104-A (iv) (b) of the Rules. But, the past performance of the operator on a route while becomes a matter of primary or dominant consideration under section 47 (1) of the Act, the sector qualification of such operator would be a matter of secondary or subsidiary consideration. This aspect is made clear by rule 104-A (iii) of the Rules, which requires taking into consideration of the applicant's sector qualification in the matter of grant of a stage carriage permit when it expressly declares that the transport authorities shall, in deciding whether to grant or refuse to grant a stage carriage permit, have regard to the matters among others the sector qualification in addition to those specified in sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act. In fact, the Supreme Court, when had an occasion to deal with a similar question relating to considerations which should weigh with the transport authorities in deciding upon an application for grant of a stage carriage permit under sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act vis-a-vis Rule 155-A (iii) (c) of the Madras Motor vehicles Rules, in the case of K. Balasubramania v. N. M. Sambandamoorthy (A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 818), has held thus:"section 47 (1) provides in so many words that the Regional Transport authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard inter alia, "to the interest of the public generally", and this is a consideration which must necessarily outweigh all others. It is ultimately on the touchstone of public interest that selection of an applicant for grant of permit must be justified. Clause (3) of Rule 155a undoubtedly provides for giving of marks to the rival applicants but the number of marks obtained by each applicant can only provide a guiding principle for grant of permit. It can never override the consideration of public interest which must dominate the selection in all cases. In fact clause (4) of Rule 155a concedes that after the applicants are ranked according to the total marks obtained by them the applications shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 (1 ). The fact that the appellant had 11 marks as against 7. In fact clause (4) of Rule 155a concedes that after the applicants are ranked according to the total marks obtained by them the applications shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 (1 ). The fact that the appellant had 11 marks as against 7. 40 of the respondent would certainly be a factor in favour of the appellant, but notwith- standing his higher marks, if public interest so requires, he may have to yield place to the respondent in the matter of selection for grant of permit. "hence, it becomes obvious that quality of past performance of a stage carriage service by its operator being a predominant matter to be taken into consideration by a transport authority under sub- section (1) of Section 47 of the Act for the purpose of deciding whether such operator could be selected for grant of his application for a new stage carriage permit, it cannot be excluded from consideration merely because the route respecting which past performance had to be considered, was also the route which was taken into consideration by the transport authority for deciding upon the sector qualification of such applicant under the rules. POINT (iii): no doubt, educational qualification in mechanical Engineering cannot be equated to the educational qualification in automobile Engineering. Automobile engineering is a specialisation in Mechanical engineering, is a matter of common knowledge. Therefore, when an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit possesses a qualification in Mechanical engineering, which may help him in proper maintenance of an automobile, such qualification will necessarily help him in proper mainte- nance of the motor vehicle for the operation of which he had sought for grant of a permit. Hence, possessing of such a qualification by an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit cannot be regarded as a matter which falls outside the purview of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the act. Hence, possessing of such a qualification by an applicant for grant of a stage carriage permit cannot be regarded as a matter which falls outside the purview of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the act. ( 6 ) THE finding recorded on Point (ii) above when makes it clear that previous performance of a stage carriage service by its operator could be taken as a factor for or against him under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act, it cannot be held that the KSTAT had committed any error of law in considering the previous performance of operation of services by the petitioner as well as respondent-3 in reaching its conclusion that respondent-3 had to be preferred to that of the petitioner in the matter of grant of a permit. Therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the previous satisfactory performance of the stage carriage service by respondent-3 should not have weighed as a factor in his favour when previous operation had also come in the sector qualification, cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected. The kstat has rightly taken the unsatisfactory previous performance of the petitioner on the route for which he was granted a temporary stage carriage permit as a factor against him for grant of the stage carriage permit newly sought for by him. It cannot also be said that the KSTAT was unjustified in preferring respondent-3 for grant of a permit on the ground that he was a qualified mechanical Engineer particularly when the petitioner did not possess any such qualification. Thus, when there is no error or infirmity in the impugned order of the KSTAT calling for interference in the exercise of this court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the order shall prevail. ( 7 ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .