V. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed assailing the order of the first respondent/state Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are : The petitioner filed application for grant of pucca permit for plying the bus on the route Siddipet town to Marpadga via Ponnala. The 2nd respondent/regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was already granted two permits of town service routes in the district of Medak and she was running the services on the said route and opportunity should be given to unemployed person instead of giving another permit to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent accordingly granted permit to one Janga Reddy. Against that order, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the appeal on the same grounds. Against the same, the present writ petition is filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no bar for granting any number of permits under Section 80 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) (for short the Act ). Further, there is no bar for grant of permit to a person who is already holding permits. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner amounts to infringement of the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and it is also contrary to the provisions of Section 80 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader contended that as the petitioner was already holding two permits, to avoid monopoly, the application of the petitioner was rejected and permit was granted to a new entrant and that therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) TN view of the above said contentions, the important questions that arises for consideration is whether holding of permits to run the town services is a bar for granting another permit.

( 6 ) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) was imposing a bar for granting of permits as provided in Section 47 (3) restricting grant of number of permits and Section 57 of the Act prescribed procedure for applying for the permits. The new Act, i. e. , Act 59 of 1988 which came into force on 1-7-1989 has done away with the said provisions and incorporated Section 80. Section 80 provides for granting of permits very liberally and there is no restriction for granting of any number of permits. The same question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443. The Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of granting of permits to new entrants and held as follows : "a comparative reading of the provisions of the Act and the old Act makes it clear that the procedure for grant of permits under the Act has been liberalised to such an extent that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. Under Section 57 read with Section 47 (1) of the old Act an application for a stage carriage permit was to be published and kept for inspection in the office of the Regional Transport Authority so that the existing operators could file representations/ objections against the said application. The application, along with objections, was required to be decided in a quasi-judicial manner. Section 47 (3) of the old Act further permitted the imposition of limit on the grant of permits in any region, area or on a particular route. It is thus obvious that the main features of Chapter IV"control of transport vehicles" under old Act woe as under : 1. The applications for grant of permits were published and were made available in the office of the Regional Transport Authority so that the existing operators could file representations; 2. The applications for grant of permits along with the representations were to be decided in quasijudicial manner;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document