is benefited on the route in question by the service operated by the 3rd respondent. So also, I am of the considered opinion, if the entire route length of the private operator is to be taken into account to entertain an application under the proviso to Sec.104 of the Act, it may lead to disastrous consequences rather than rendering benefit to the public under the proviso. Which thus means, a passenger cannot undertake a journey in the entire route length, travelling in a single stage carriage, putting the passenger into innumerable difficulties and inconveniences. The betterment of public transport system is a greater need of the day so as to reduce the density of traffic on roads. Merely because the State Transport Undertaking has stated that it is operating sufficient services on the route in question, that by itself, will not suffice the situation. Therefore, in my considered opinion, 1st respondent has not exercised the power conferred on him, in a proper and effective manner to arrive at a reasonable and logical conclusion and hence Ext.P8 order suffers from the vice of illegality, arbitrariness, and irrationality warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
