Contract carriage permit renewal must rest on disclosed, relevant material, not conjecture or bare administrative assertions.

Renewal of a contract carriage permit had to be decided on relevant statutory criteria, fair procedure and objective material. The SC held that refusal could not rest on irrelevant, untested or undisclosed material, conjecture, hearsay, or bare administrative assertions about existing services or competition. Adverse material had to be disclosed and fairly confronted before it was used against the applicant. As the denial lacked a lawful evidentiary basis and ignored the need to assess public interest on tangible facts, the refusal was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration on proper grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refusal to renew a contract carriage permit could be sustained on the basis of irrelevant, untested, or undisclosed material and bare administrative assertions; (ii) whether the permit holder's renewal claim had to be considered on relevant statutory criteria and on fair, objective grounds in the public interest.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to renew a contract carriage permit could be sustained on the basis of irrelevant, untested, or undisclosed material and bare administrative assertions.

Analysis: Renewal of a permit under the statutory scheme had to rest on relevant considerations and material placed on record. A quasi-judicial transport authority could not act on conjecture, hearsay, or unexplained assertions such as adequacy of existing services or supposed unhealthy competition. Material adverse to the applicant had to be disclosed and fairly put to him before it was used against renewal. The orders disclosing no objective basis, and relying on non-material or untested assumptions, were unsupported by lawful reasoning.

Conclusion: The refusal could not be sustained and was vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the permit holder's renewal claim had to be considered on relevant statutory criteria and on fair, objective grounds in the public interest.

Analysis: The statutory provisions governing grant and renewal of permits required consideration of public interest and the need for transport facilities, but renewal was ordinarily available unless outweighing reasons justified refusal. The authority had to assess whether an additional vehicle was unnecessary or undesirable on tangible data. In the absence of evidence showing disqualification, road danger, or genuine excess capacity, the existing permit holder's claim could not be defeated by a vague administrative preference. The denial also ignored the applicant's prior permit and the practical effect of sterilising a substantial investment without a proper basis.

Conclusion: The renewal claim was entitled to fair reconsideration on proper material, and the rejection was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The refusal order was quashed for breach of fair procedure and reliance on irrelevant considerations, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration of renewal on proper grounds.

---