Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. M/s Ajit Bus Service, a registered partnership firm, has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) whereby the order of the State Transport Commissioner granting one stage carriage permit with one return trip on the route in question in favour of the petitioner was set aside and the said permit was granted in favour of Patiala Golden Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Patiala (Respondent No. 3 herein) who was one of the applicant for the said permit. 2. In the present case, the Regional Transport Authority by virtue of a notice got published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly, Chandigarh on 1.12.2005 invited applications for grant of two stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily on Hoshiarpur - Bathinda via Adampur - Nakodar - Malsian - Shahkot - Dharamkot - Moga - Baghapurana - Kotkapura - Jaito route. In response to the said publication, 56 applicants applied for grant of these permits. Undisputedly, the single length of the route in question is 228 Kms. Falls on the state Highways and the remaining portion of 34 Kms. Falls on the district roads. As per the Transport Scheme dated 9.8.1990 as modified on 21.10.1997, the permits had to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the private operators in the ratio of 40:60. Accordingly, out of the two permits one permit was required to be granted in favour of the State Transport Undertakings and the other permit with one return trip in favour of the private operators. 3. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid permit as new entrant and not as an existing operator. However, when during the course of discussion made in the meeting held by the Regional Transport Authority on 9.6.2006 it was transpired that the permits were going to be granted in favour of the existing operators, then the petitioner disclosed that it holds a stage carriage permit on Jalandhar-Malout route. At that time, an objection was raised by another competitor that the petitioner had concealed the material facts consciously and deliberately, therefore, it should not have been considered and granted the permit which was to be granted to the existing private operators. At that time, an objection was raised by another competitor that the petitioner had concealed the material facts consciously and deliberately, therefore, it should not have been considered and granted the permit which was to be granted to the existing private operators. In spite of that objection, the Regional Transport Authority granted one stage carriage permit with one return trip daily on the route in question in favour of the petitioner and the other permit was granted to the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, a State Government Undertaking vide order dated 10.7.2006. 4. Against the said order, seven appeals were filed by different persons including respondent No. 3-Patiala Golden Co-operative Society under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the petitioner deliberately concealed the material facts and had actually made a false representation before the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that it was a new entrant whereas actually it was holding many permits. Before the Appellate Tribunal, respondent No. 3 placed on record the documents showing that the petitioner was operating on 5 routes. With regard to the said material, the petitioner had taken the stand that only one permit i.e. Malout-Jalandhar route was in the name of the petitioner-firm, other two permits on Gurdaspur-Bathinda route and the remaining two permits were being held by the partners of the petitioner firm. The Appellate Tribunal while taking into consideration all the material and hearing the arguments of the counsel for both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the facts in its application that it was an existing operator and wrongly disclosed itself to be a new entrant, and when it was transpired that the stage carriage permit on the route in question was going to be granted in favour of the existing operators, it disclosed that it was also an existing operator. Therefore, the appellate Tribunal found that the permit on the route in question was obtained by the petitioner by concealment of material facts and by making a false representation. It has also been found that an undue favour was shown to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, the appellate Tribunal found that the permit on the route in question was obtained by the petitioner by concealment of material facts and by making a false representation. It has also been found that an undue favour was shown to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority. While comparing the merits of the different applicants, the Appellate Tribunal decided to set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority and granted the stage carriage permit on the route in question in favour of respondent No. 3. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that under Rule 63(iv) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the petitioner firm was not required to disclose about the permits held by it and its partners in its individual capacity. He submitted that at the time of consideration for grant of the permit, the petitioner firm had disclosed that it was holding a permit on Malout-Jalandhar route, therefore, it could not be taken that the petitioner had deliberately made concealment and as such it was not entitled for grant of a permit. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner did not disclose the said facts in its application, rather disclosed it in the meeting held by the Regional Transport Authority on 9.6.2006 when it was decided that one permit was to be given to the existing operator. As far as the production of the material before the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, it has been stated that only one permit on the aforesaid route was being held by the petitioner firm, two permits were being held by the partners of the petitioner firm in its individual capacity and other two permits were being held by the petitioner firm on contract basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that all these permits were issued subsequently after making the application by the petitioner for the grant of stage carriage permit on the route in question. From all these facts, it is apparent that the petitioner had deliberately described itself to be a new entrant when actually the petitioner firm was holding permits and operating on different routes. So, at least one fact has not been disputed that the petitioner firm itself was having one permit on Jalandhar-Malout route. Even the said fact has not been disclosed. So, at least one fact has not been disputed that the petitioner firm itself was having one permit on Jalandhar-Malout route. Even the said fact has not been disclosed. From the aforesaid facts, it is also clear that the petitioner deliberately took the false stand that it is an existing operator when it came to its knowledge that the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting on 9.6.2006 had decided that one permit was to be given to the existing operator Keeping in view such conduct of the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly set aside the grant of one stage carriage permit on the route in question to the petitioner. We are of the opinion that if a person approaches the Court with unclean hands, he is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. As far as the grant of permit to respondent No. 3 is concerned, the same was granted by the Appellate Tribunal after comparing the merits of different applicants who filed the appeals vis-a-vis respondent No. 3, which was having better merits inasmuch as it was a Co-operative Society registered with the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies having 11 members. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.