Back
1999 Supreme(AP) 1113
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY
M.Sai Venkata Ramana - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Kakinada - Respondent
Decided On : 12-07-99
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Sections 87 , 79 , 72 , 76 , 80 and 74 - IT is case of petitioner that permit was directed to be issued by State Transport Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of orders in Appeal and when that order is suspended by this Court in a writ petition filed by Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, he made an application for grant of temporary permit on route in question duly considering matter - But, however, that order was set aside and respondent was directed to consider matter -Grievance of petitioner is that respondent has virtually passed an order contrary to directions of this Court thereby he has not only committed contempt of this Court, but also order itself is wholly baseless and contrary to law – Held , Irrespective of fact that whether a person is a permit holder or not matter lias to be considered - May be in this case, petitioner was granted permit, but same was not issued due to reasons stated above - But, that makes no difference in eye of law - Petitioner has to be treated as a person applying for temporary permit without reference to application made by him for grant of pucca stage carriage permit and issue of permit was suspended by this Court - More over, understanding of authority is that issue of permit ought to be issued for a particular period and if it restrained by any Court or authority, application for temporary permit could be considered - This ex facie appears to be incorrect approach and contrary to clause - What is mentioned in said clause is that temporary permit could be granted for a period not exceeding period for which issue of permit has been so restrained - Therefore, till such time, restraint order is in force, it is open for authority to consider application for temporary permit - Similarly, under Clause it could be issued for period for which suspension is in operation - No specific periods need be mentioned as it depends on disposal of matters by concerned authorities or Court - Thus, temporary permits could be issued for a period of four months or till period of restraint or period of suspension extinguishes whichever event occurs earlier - However, for next spell of temporary permits, person has to make fresh application it may be a person who was already holding temporary permit or it could be a person other than person holding temporary permit and it has to be considered in accordance - Respondents proceeded with matter quite contrary to law without properly appreciating statutory provisions - Statutory provision has to be interpreted keeping in view object and purpose for which it was enacted - object is apparent that in order not to inconvenience to travelling public, whenever permit is suspended or when permit could not be issued on account of restraint order by Court or competent authority, application for temporary permit could be considered without following procedure - If view of respondent is accepted, very object is frustrated - Writ petition is allowed
( 1 ) THIS is the second successive writ petition filed by the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings issued by the respondent in Memo No. 27822/a1/97 dated 25-4-1998. The petitioner made an application for pucca stage carriage permit on the existing town service route Venkatanagar to Patavala. The said application was rejected by the respondent. Against the said rejection the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in AP No. 380 of 1996. The said Tribunal after considering the matter allowed the appeal on 18-3-1997 and directed the authorities to issue permit to the petitioner on the route in question. It as the case of the petitioner that he purchased the bus in pursuance of an order of the appellate authority and kept the vehicle ready to ply the same on issue of permit. But, however, the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation filed Writ Petition No. 6010 of. 1997 challenging the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. 380 of 1996 and the same was suspended on 13-4-1997. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for grant of temporary stage carriage permit under Section 87 on 28-8-1997. When the application was not considered, he filed Writ Petition No. 3759/98 and it was disposed of on 6-3-1998 to consider the application and pass orders according to law. However, the respondent rejected the application on 19-3-1998. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8155 of 1998. This Court after considering the matter disposed of the writ petition on 2-4-1998 with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 87 (2) (1) of the Act and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the matter was again considered by the 2nd respondent and the application was rejected on 25-4-1998 and the said rejection order is assailed in this writ petition. It is also noticed that the petitioner also filed Contempt Case No. 1354 of 1998 alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the Orders of this Court.
( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that permit was directed to be issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of the orders in Appeal No. 380 of 1996 and when that order is suspended by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, he made an application for grant of temporary permit on the route in question under Section 87 of MV Act duly considering the matter under Section 87 (2) (ii) of MV Act. But, however, that order was set aside and the respondent was directed to consider the matter under Section 87 (2) (i) of the MV Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has virtually passed an order contrary to the directions of this Court thereby he has not only committed contempt of this Court, but also the order itself is wholly baseless and contrary to law.
( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader submits that the order passed by the authority was in pursuance of the directions granted by this Court and submits that the order is quite legal and valid. The respondent rejected the application under the impugned order by stating thus :"the grant itself suspended by the Hon ble High Court and on what grounds the temporary permit application to be considered. As per Section 87 (2) (i) of the MV Act, 1988 where the permit is restrained for a certain period then only the question of issue of temporary permit arises. In this case, the petitioner is not having any permit. He is only a grantee on the route, that grant also suspend by the Hon ble High Court in WPMP No. 7218/97 in WP No. 6010/97 on 30-4-1997. The temporary permit application is considered and disposed of under Section 87 (2) (i) of MV Act, 1988 and rejected on the following grounds: (1) The original grant of STAT was suspended by Hon ble High Court in WPMP No. 7218/97 in WP No. 6010/97 dated 30-4-1997. Hence, the petitioner is not having any permit on the said route. (2) As
