V. Ramaswami, J.
1. For the grant of a stage carriage permit to ply on the town service route from Dharmapuri Bus Stand to Palacode, applications were invited. The petitioner obtained 8 marks and the respondent obtained 9 marks On the basis of marks, the respondent was selected and the permit was granted to the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. Out of the 9 marks awarded to the respondent, 5 marks were awarded under Rule 155-A(3)(D), and these marks, therefore, should not be taken into account for the purpose of comparing the relative merits of the petitioner and the respondent. It is true that in every case, on the basis of a State Transport undertaking, the respondent Corporation is given 5 marks, but there is another provision in Rule 155-A(3)(D)(ii), that if the applicant already operates stage carriages, he will have to be offered certain marks on the basis of the number of stage carriages run by them. The petitioner who was operating three stage carriages was awarded the maximum of 4 marks. If 5 marks awardable under Rule 155-A(3)(D) to the respondent could not be taken into account, there is no justification for taking the 4 marks under the same provision to the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner equality of treatment. It is true that the maxiing it is unique and nobody else could be compared to it and get the 5 marks, but on the other hand, the marks to be awarded for having already operated stage carriages should he uniformly applied to every one of the applicants and therefore there could not be any equation of an ordinary applicant who was plying certain stage carriages with a State Transport undertaking. We are concerned with the question whether the grant of 5 marks under Rule 155-A(3)(D) to the respondent could be taken into account in deciding as to whom the permit is to be granted. For such a question, unless the petitioner who is also competing is given no weightage for being in possession of stage carriage, there will not be any equality of treatment. If is true that the maximum marks awardable for individuals who are operating stage carriages are 4 marks whereas the marks that are awarded to the State Transport undertakings are only five. The Supreme Court has held in D.R. Venkatachalam v. Deputy Transport Commissioner : 2SCR392 , that the awarding of such 5 marks to the State Transport undertaking is justified in public interest. Therefore, we cannot compare the petitioner and the respondent herein except on the basis of the total marks obtained.
2. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under the proviso to Section 47(1), preference is to be given to any State Transport undertaking over individuals, but that is subject to the other conditions being equal. The other conditions referred to in this clause shall be understood as generality of qualifications applicable to normal applicants and the respondent being a Corporation could not be stated as standing on the same footing as other individuals. I am unable to agree with this contention also. The proviso itself refers to individual owner and State Transport undertakings or a Cooperative Society. Therefore the proviso contemplates a comparison of a State Transport undertaking and an individual and preferring the State Transport undertaking on the basis of the 5 marks given under Rule 155-A could not be questioned. Even though Rule 155-A was not there at the time when the proviso was originally introduced in Section 47 and the amendment including the State Transport undertakings in the proviso also was inserted only in 1974, the words 'other conditions being equal' could not be given any different meaning so as to exclude a comparison of individual owners with that of a State Transport undertaking. Further, in this case, as already seen the respondent has obtained 9 marks and the petitioner obtained only 8 marks and that itself shows that other conditions were not equal and the respondent was chosen for the grant of the permit on its own merits and not on the basis of invoking the proviso to Section 47(1).
3. The revision petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150.