JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the 1 opinion that no interference is called for in this appeal. 2. The respondent's application for change of route of the vehicle was I Mused. He was already granted a permit for plying the Mini Bus on Fatehnagar to Kuraj route. He has sought that his permit may be modified for Fatehpur Deogarh route. It has been refused on two fold grounds. 3. Firstly, that a mini bus, which is much smaller than a big bus is not roadworthy for long distance. However, this reason appears to have no nexus with the ostensible reason for refusal. On the court question that whether mini buses are granted permits for plying as tourist taxi or as 10 contract carriage for short distances only. This was replied to that such permits are granted without any distance criterion. If that being so, we are unable to see any nexus between such criterion of road-worthiness with distance of route with the kind of permits sought. The tourist vehicle, contract carriage or public service vehicle are all public service vehicles meant for is carrying passengers from one place to another. If mini bus is a hazardous to public safety or safety of passengers which it carries, then whether it is plied as service vehicle, contract carriage or tourist vehicle, it is equally safety risk in all cases, and cannot justify for grant of permits to carry passengers or hire in any case. If not, then for service carriage purposes only it cannot be termed as a road unworthy for distance of barely 107 kms. 4. In our opinion the road-worthiness cannot be attached with one type of permits which are sought for it not for others. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in not accepting the reason given for rejecting the application to be reasonable on the face of it. 5. The second reason that weighed with transport authorities for rejecting the application for change of route was that because of the competition between already existing permits on the route it would be unsafe to grant permit to the mini buses. 5. The second reason that weighed with transport authorities for rejecting the application for change of route was that because of the competition between already existing permits on the route it would be unsafe to grant permit to the mini buses. However, this again does not furnish a valid ground in law inasmuch as learned counsel for the appellant was candid when he said that had it been an application for plying a big bus on the same route it would have been granted. Therefore, the competition referred to in the order apparently has no legs to stand. The term competition refers to business competition, it does not furnish a valid ground while weighing public interest. If it refers to traffic competition, then denial on the ground that applicant's bus is small, cannot be sustained when larger bus could have been allowed to ply on the same route with same existing service. As both the grounds which weighed for rejecting the application cannot be said to be valid grounds in the eye of law and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with direction to consider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by him, after rejecting the new grounds sought to be raised during the course of hearing to sustain the rejection order, the same does not call for interference. 6. We are further informed that in pursuance of the direction of this Court the vehicle in question has already been examined by the RTA and has be n found to be roadworthy for the route in question. 7. In view of the above, no interference is called for in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******