Judgment :- 1. The facts in O. P. No. 7957 of 1987 may be stated first. I shall refer to the parties and the exhibits with reference to this original petition. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 12 of 1955 whose members are all Harijans. A copy of its Memorandum of Association is Ext. P3. The objects of the Society are creation of employment opportunities for Harijan youths, and thereby improving their conditions of living; working for the economic and social uplift of Harijans; promotion of brotherhood and camaraderie among the members of the Society; operation of stage carriage services and utilisation of the income therefrom for the benefit of unemployed Harijan youths and for advancing the objects of the Society. The Society has as its members ten educated Harijan youths with valid heavy vehicle driving licence, and conductor licence. The Collector of Ernakulam District has granted loan to the Society under the Special Component Plan intended for the benefit of Harijans/Girijans. The Society owns a stage carriage K.B.F. 6819 with a seating capacity of 43. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam decided on April 28.1987 to introduce two stage carriage services on the route Alwaye Konthuruthy to operate in opposite directions. Applications were invited for temporary permits, reserving one of the permits for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants. 3. The Society and respondents 4 and 5, (who are the petitioners in the other two original petitions) applied for grant of the permits. The Regional Transport Authority considered the applications, and granted the permit for the route Alwaye Konthuruthy to the Society, and the other permit, for the route Konthuruthy Alwaye to the fifth respondent. 4. The fourth respondent, who was unsuccessful in getting a permit, and who claimed to be more qualified than the Society and the fifth respondent, appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (the first respondent). Inter alia he contended that the reservation of one of the permits for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes was illegal, and not warranted by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by the order Ext.P13 dated September 15, 1987. It was held that reservation for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes was not an absolute one. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by the order Ext.P13 dated September 15, 1987. It was held that reservation for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes was not an absolute one. The question of granting a permit to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe applicants by way of reservation arose only if other conditions were equal, as per R.177AA of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (the Rules). It was further held that the society as such was not entitled to get a permit in the reservation quota as it had "no caste or creed" to be treated as a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. On merits, the Tribunal was of the view that the society did not possess even the minimum qualification for the grant of a permit. They had no office on the route They had no experience and they had no sector qualification. 5. For all these reasons, the grant to the society was set aside. The permit was then granted to the fourth respondent; with the fifth respondent retaining the earlier grant. But in doing so, the Tribunal observed that the qualifications of the fourth respondent were superior to those of the fifth respondent. 6. The society challenges Ext.P13 by filing O.P.No.7657 of 19.87. In their turn, the two grantees, namely respondents 4 and 5 have filed writ petitions O.P.Nos.7734 and 7929 of 1987 respectively. These two original petitions appear to have been filed as a matter of abundant caution, to provide against the contingency of the society's writ petition being allowed. The fourth respondent claims that he ought to have been granted the permit awarded to the fifth respondent instead of the one granted to the society. The fifth respondent's challenge to Ext.P13 is to the observations of the Tribunal that the fourth respondent was better qualified than him. 7. The period for which the permits were granted was four months expiring on October 6,1987. That period had expired even before these original petitions were heard. In the circumstances, the questions relating to qualifications or the relative merits of the applicants, raised by the petitioners, need not loom large with this court. I leave those questions open. 8. However, certain aspects referred to and dealt with by the Tribunal in the order Ext.P13 require to be clarified and dealt with. In the circumstances, the questions relating to qualifications or the relative merits of the applicants, raised by the petitioners, need not loom large with this court. I leave those questions open. 8. However, certain aspects referred to and dealt with by the Tribunal in the order Ext.P13 require to be clarified and dealt with. The Tribunal has held that the society is not entitled to be considered for a permit reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, as it has no "caste or creed". The society has assailed this decision as opposed to the scheme of reservation provided in the Act. This question has to be dealt with but, before doing so, I must refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. 9. S.47 deals with the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for stage carriage permit. Sub-s. (1) requires the Regional Transport Authority to have regard to the various matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in considering an application for a stage carriage permit. The proviso to the sub-section spells out certain preferences in granting permits. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is given preference over other applicants. Subject to this preference, Co-operative Societies registered or deemed to be registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over individual owners. Both these preferences are however subject to the paramount and over-riding condition of "other conditions being equal". 10. Then follow other reservations, in favour of particular categories of operators. Sub-s. (1A) requires Government to reserve certain percentage of stage carriage permits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which expressions carry the same meanings as assigned to them in Art.366 of the Constitution. Sub-s. (1B) stipulates that the reservation of permits shall be in the same ratio as in the case of appointments made by direct recruitment to public services in the State. The effect of sub-s. (1A) is that Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes operators in Kerala can have 10% of the permits reserved for them. Sub-s. (1C) (a) enables the Government, under certain circumstances, to reserve such percentage of stage carriage permits as may be prescribed for persons belonging to economically weaker sections, and notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-s. (1), to give preference to such applicants for stage carriages. Sub-s. (1C) (a) enables the Government, under certain circumstances, to reserve such percentage of stage carriage permits as may be prescribed for persons belonging to economically weaker sections, and notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-s. (1), to give preference to such applicants for stage carriages. As to who is a person belonging to the economically weaker sections is defined in Explanation I. 11. Sub-s. (11)) limits the number of permits to be reserved under subsection (1B) or sub-s. (1C) (a) to 50% of the total number of stage carriage permits granted during a calendar year. Sub-s. (1E) empowers the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to do, to group the various routes within its jurisdiction. Sub-s. (1F) is significant and relevant and provides the cue for the decision of the point in issue. It lays down that where any such stage carriage permit is to be granted from the quota reserved under sub-s. (1B) or clause (a) of sub-s. (1C), to any Co-operative Society, or to any firm to which the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 apply, no permit shall be granted to such society or firm unless the members of the Co-operative Society or the partners of the firm belong to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or economically weaker sections of the community. The first proviso provides for the contingency of the members of the Co-operative Society or partners of the firm being drawn from two or more of the aforesaid sources namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and economically weaker sections. In such cases the permit shall be granted from the quota reserved for the category to which the largest number of members of the Co-operative Society or partners of the firm belong. The second provides for a similar contingency where no reservation has been made in the State under sub-s. (1C) (a) for the economically weaker sections of the community. In such an event, it is directed that the Co-operative Society or firm shall be granted permit only from the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes according as to whether the larger number of the members of the Co-operative Society, or partners of the firm, belong to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. 12. In such an event, it is directed that the Co-operative Society or firm shall be granted permit only from the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes according as to whether the larger number of the members of the Co-operative Society, or partners of the firm, belong to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. 12. Sub-s. (1G) leaves it to Government to prescribe the manner, and the extent to which, the reservation under sub-ss. (1A) or (1C) (a) can be carried forward. 13. R.177AA of the Rules has been framed to implement the mandate of S.47 (1A). Sub-rule (1) provides that in granting stage carriage, public carrier or national permits, other conditions being equal, permits shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the ratio provided in sub-s. (1B) of S.47. Sub-Rules (2) and (3) provide for "carry forward" of unutilised permits, and for the grouping of routes. 14. The Tribunal has proceeded on the postulate that permits in the reservation quota can be granted only to natural persons and not to artificial persons or bodies like the society as they have no caste or creed. I am afraid that in reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the provisions of the section, particularly sub-s. (1F). 15. The Act contemplates grant of permits not only to natural persons but also to firms, societies, companies and statutory Corporations. Sub-ss. (1A) and (1C) (a) enable reservation of permits for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and economically weaker sections of the community. Sub-s. (1F) and its proviso implement this provision with detailed prescriptions as to when a firm or a Co-operative society could be benefited with a permit in the reservation quota, and as to how its precise nature is to be determined when the partnership, or membership, is mixed and drawn from one or more of the categories of persons dealt with in sub-ss. (1A) and (1C) (a). The clear pointer of this sub-section is that the benefit of reservation is extended, and is available to artificial legal persons as well and that the grantee of the benefit need not necessarily be a natural person. Otherwise there is no scope for such a provision dealing with firms and co-operative societies for the purpose of reservation. The decision of the Tribunal that the quota of permits reserved under sub-ss. Otherwise there is no scope for such a provision dealing with firms and co-operative societies for the purpose of reservation. The decision of the Tribunal that the quota of permits reserved under sub-ss. (1A), (and under sub-s. (1C) (a) could be availed of only by natural persons "with caste and creed" flies in the face of sub-s. (1F) and the indication afforded thereby regarding the beneficiaries of the reservation. 16. Any other conclusion will lead to anomalies and will be unreasonable. Running of the transport industry involving heavy investment, much managerial time and skill, by combination of individuals, partnerships or by formation of companies or societies is currently an accepted mode of carrying on the business. Particularly in the case of the depressed classes and the economically weaker sections, which have to thrive substantially on aid from Government or public financial institutions, such association of entrepreneurs is only to be expected, and may even be obligatory to avail of the credit facilities. To deny the benefit of reservation under sub-s. (1A) and (1C) (a) to such classes of operators (solely for the reason that they are not individuals) will be to ignore the realities in the field of transport business. The legislation is specifically intended for the benefit of the weaker sections and must bear an interpretation that will advance this object and render the benefit to the largest segments of these classes of people. To confine its benefit to natural persons leaving out combinations of such individuals, out of its purview, will well nigh defeat its very purpose and intendment. 17. I am therefore of the view that a society like the petitioner registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act will also be entitled to aspire for a permit reserved under sub-ss. (1A) or (1C) (a). Necessarily, the society will have to satisfy the tests formulated in sub-s. (1F), regarding membership, to be considered for the permit, and, in the decision of the question as to whether the permit is to be in the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe quota or in that for economically weaker sections, in case of mixed membership. It is true, sub-s. (1F) is not directly applicable as it deals only with firms and Co-operative societies but the principles laid down therein must equally apply to societies like the petitioner in the absence of any other guidelines. 18. It is true, sub-s. (1F) is not directly applicable as it deals only with firms and Co-operative societies but the principles laid down therein must equally apply to societies like the petitioner in the absence of any other guidelines. 18. R.177AA states that other conditions being equal, permits shall be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the ratio provided in sub-s. (1B) of S.47. R.177AA is referable to S.47 (1A) and seeks to implement the mandate contained therein. In fact though the sub-section was introduced in the Act by the amending Act 47 of 1978, which came into force on 16-1-1979, R.177AA found its place in the Rules only long afterwards on 11-3-1986. Petitioner submits that the prescription in the Rule that permits can be reserved under sub-s. (1A) only if other conditions are equal, runs counter to the terms of that sub-section and is therefore void. What sub-s. (1A) contemplates is reservation of permits for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A certain percentage of permits has to be reserved for them. The very scheme of reservation postulates that the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes are not expected to compete with others, not belonging to those categories in the matter of grant of permits. To call upon such operators to compete with those outside the category will be to defeat the very purpose of the reservation and to deprive them of the benefit. Reservation is necessitated because of the very inability of the weaker sections to catch up with the advanced communities in qualifications and otherwise. If the reservation is to be meaningful and purposive, the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe operators should have to compete only among themselves, and not with others. By making the grant or reservation subject to other conditions being equal, the principle of reservation is given the go by and a rule of preference substituted in its stead. This is not what is contemplated by sub-s. (1A). Therefore R.177AA in so far as it provides for "other conditions being equal" is not in accord with S.47 (1A). 19. The original petitions are closed with the above observations. I make it clear that the grant of any future permit, temporary or regular, will be uninfluenced by the finding regarding the respective merits of the three petitioners in this series of original petitions. There will be no order as to costs. 19. The original petitions are closed with the above observations. I make it clear that the grant of any future permit, temporary or regular, will be uninfluenced by the finding regarding the respective merits of the three petitioners in this series of original petitions. There will be no order as to costs. Issue photo copy of the judgment on usual terms.