S.K. Ray, J.
1. The petitioner was an applicant for nermanenl stage carriage permit on the inter-State route of Karaniia to Tatanagar. in pursuance of notification issued bv the State Transport Authority. Orissa, O.P. No. 1 inviting applications for that route. All the applicants were duly invited under Section 57. M.V. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for filing objections. Objections were filed and ultimately the State Transport Authoritv in its meeting dated 31-10-1969 granted the application of O.P. No. 3 and rejected the applications of all others including that of the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner went up in an appeal to the O.P. No. 2 In M.V. Appeal No. 7/70. The appeal was dismissed on 18-5-1970 The petitioner has filed this application for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31-10-1969 passed by O.P. No. 1 and also of the appellate authority, namely O.P. No. 2.
2. Two points have been taken. The first that the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to invite and entertain applications for granting a stage carriage permit in respect of the inter-State route in question, which is a matter within the exclusive iurisdiction of the appropriate authority for this purpose which is the concerned Regional Transport Authoritv as provided in Section 45of the Act The second point is that on merits the case of the petitioner is better than that of the O. P. No. 3 and the order in favour of the latter is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the affidavit filed by the petitioner showing that the successful candidate had no garage.
3. The first point has been dealt with and negatived in the common judgment passed in regard to the batch of similar writ applications, O. J. Cs. 302, 157 and 347 of 1970. which has been delivered today. It has been there held that the State Transport Authoritv has power and iurisdiction to perform the duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authoritv in the matter of inviting applications for grant of stage carriage permit in respect of inter-State routes under Section 44 (3) (b) of the Act. For reasons stated in the judgment of the aforesaid batch of cases, delivered today and in the absence of anv allegation made on behalf of the petitioner that the State Transport Authority did not think it fit to perform the duties of the concerned Regional Transport Authority in respect of the route in question prior to inviting applications, this point also fails.
4. It appears from the orders of the State Transport Authoritv as well as of the appellate authority that they have gone through all the documents filed by the respective parties in this case and considered all the relevant circumstances in favour of and against all the applicants including the petitioner. It is found that the petitioner as well as O. P. No. 3 have many factors in their favour, and both are well qualified for the grant of stage carriage permit. What apparently tipped the scale in favour of O. P. No. 3 was that the petitioner had recently been granted a stage carriage permit for the inter-State route of Keonihar to Calcutta. O. P. No. 3 has been found to satisfy residential qualification and his solvency. He was also found to be an experienced transport operator. That apart, another factor which entitled O. P. No. 3 to special consideration was that he was a displaced operator inasmuch as two routes of 'Rairangpur to Tiringi' and 'Purunspani to Tata' in respect of which he was a permit holder were nationalised. No one being entitled to a permit as of right even if he satisfied all prescribed conditions and to grant permit being entirelv within the discretion of transport authorities, the decision to grant permit to O- P. No. 3 cannot in the aforesaid circumstances be held to be bad in law. I am satisfied that both the State Transport, Authority and the appellate authority have carefully weighed all the factors both in favour of and against the petitioner as well as the O. P. No. 3 in arriving at theirdecisions to grant the permit to O. P. No. 3. The judicial tests for issuing a writ of certiorari like breach of principles of natural justice or error apparent on the face of record or the like are not satisfied inthe instant case. On merit, the orders of the O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 do not suffer from anv such legal infirmity as to warrant issuance of a writ of certiorari.
5. In the result, therefore, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there would be no order for costs.