Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 1253
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK, V.V.S.RAO, S.B.SINHA
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, VIZIANAGARAM - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal A.P., Hyd. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-16-01
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 104 - G.O.Ms. 625 dt. 19-5-75 clause 4 - Construing of - Approved Scheme - Having regard to terminologies used in scheme, new permits cannot be granted in relation to a part of route which would be overlapping the existing routes.
Held : No obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment. The note which was appended by way of explanation of the meaning and intendment of the Act was absolutely clear and unambiguous. It saves the existing permits only. It does not contemplate grant of new permits. It is not a case where the Court is concerned with different types of permits.
A route may be nationalised in terms of the provisions of the Act. A detailed procedure had been laid down therefor in the said Act. A draft scheme may be modified or approved in terms of Section 100 of the Act. When a route is nationalised in terms of chapter VI a private operator may ply a stage carriage in any route with a permit but the same cannot be allowed on a route which has a common overlapping sector with national route unless authorised in this behalf in terms of the scheme itself.
The complete exclusion of plying a stage carriage permit on the routes overlapping completely would include partial overlapping also. The entire scheme has to be read in its entirety. It has to be read reasonably. The intention of the maker of the scheme which is itself a legislative function must be understood having regard to the rules relating to the cardinal principles of interpretation of statutes.
The first part of the notification completely excludes plying of any vehicle holding a stage carriage permit on the proposed route. Even plying of vehicle on the overlapping portion of the route is also competely excluded. The note appended to the scheme is only by way of exception.
Having regard to the object and purport of chapter VI of the Act only the existing permit holders have been permitted to operate in their route. By process of interpretation, the Court cannot come to a finding that even new permits can be granted in relation to the said route.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. FACTS:
( 2 ) THE private operators are operating their bus services from Vizianagaram to gumpam via old bus stand, Kothapeta temple, Prema Samajam, P. B. Colony junction, Venugopalapuram, Ramathirthalu junction, Moida junction, Jarajapupeta.
( 3 ) THE overlapping portions of the State route would appear from the following sketch.
( 4 ) THE aforementioned route was nationalised by reason of G. O. Ms. No. 625, (1) Route (starting point and terminus with important intermediate stations and route length) 4. Maximum and minimum number of vehicles proposed to be operated on each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion, complete or partial, or otherwise of other persons. (a) Maximum number (b) Minimum number (c) Type (d) Capacity dated 19-5-1975 laying down the scheme, the relevant portions whereof are as follows: visakhapatnam-Moida (via) Anandapuram, tagarapuvalasa, Rajapulova Jn, Bhogapuram, nathavalasa, Denkada, Vizianagaram and nellimerla (92 kms. ). The following number of buses are proposed to- be operated to the complete exclusion of all other persons holding a stage carriage permit on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely on the proposed route, except to the extent specified in the note hereunder. 4 1 saloon 44-60 seating capacity. Note appended to the Government order reads thus: (1) The other State Transport undertakings: (2) The holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes; (3) The existing holders of stage carriage permits in respect of such route or routes, which partially overlap the proposed route.
( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent in Writ Petition No. 29506 of 1998 rejected the application of the 3rd respondent for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply on the mofussil route, on the ground that the said route overlaps the notified route to an extent of 10. 2 kms. The 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent- state Transport Appellate Tribunal which has allowed the appeal by order dated 18-2-1998 which is impugned herein by the petitioner. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this court, the following order was passed:. . . . . . it is noticed that Clause 4 of g. O. MS. NO. 625, dt. 19-5-75 excludes the operation by all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely on the proposed route, except to the extent exempted under the note. The note specifies three classes of exempted categories. There is a conflict of opinion as regards the interpretation of a clause similar to clause 4 of the approved scheme in G. O. Ms. No. 625, dt. 19-5-75. In W. P. No. 15538/98 by the order dt. 17-9-99 the said conflict has been referred for consideration of larger Bench of this Court, for resolution. The question arising in this writ petition is identical to the question that falls for consideration in W. P. No. 15538/98, which has been referred to the Larger Bench. QUESTION:
( 6 ) INTERPRETATION of clause (4) of G. O. Ms. No. 625, dated 19-5-1975 where by operation of stage carriages by other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route is excluded, is involved in this reference. SUBMISSIONS:
( 7 ) THE contention of the writ petitioners is that having regard to the expressions used in clause (4) of the said G. O. Ms. No. 625, dated 19-5-1975 it must be held that grant of new stage carriage permit in respect of the said route whether complete or partial is prohibited. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Bihar S. R. T. C. v. State transport Appellate Tribunal.
( 8 ) MR. Venkataramana, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would
