Back
1994 Supreme(AP) 255
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.M.AGARWAL, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
B.Satyam - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, State Transport Authority, A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-23-94
The variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles or trips is not permitted under the approved scheme and would amount to a substantial modification of the scope and ambit of the existing permit.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - VARIATION - APPROVED SCHEME - SAVING CLAUSE - INTERPRETATION - POWER OF TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which allowed his appeal and directed the Secretary, STA to grant his application for two additional single trips on the route Parvathipuram to Itchapuram with one more bus and revised timings. The Secretary, STA filed a writ petition to quash the order of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of the Tribunal was erroneous in law and could not be sustained. The court found that the variation sought for by the petitioner, namely, an increase in the number of trips and vehicles on the same notified route, was not permitted under the approved scheme and would amount to a substantial modification of the scope and ambit of the existing permit.
Issues: 1. Whether the variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles or trips could be allowed to the existing permit-holders under the approved scheme? 2. Whether the saving clause in the approved scheme permitted the variation of the existing permit to such an extent as to allow additional trips with an additional vehicle on the very same notified route?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles or trips could not be allowed to the existing permit-holders under the approved scheme. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U. P., which held that once a scheme is published under Section 68d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, no person other than the State Transport Undertaking may operate on the notified area or notified route except as provided in the scheme itself. 2. The court held that the saving clause in the approved scheme did not permit the variation of the existing permit to such an extent as to allow additional trips with an additional vehicle on the very same notified route. The court found that such a variation would amount to a substantial modification of the scope and ambit of the existing permit and would be detrimental to public interest.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The court also dismissed the Secretary, STA's writ petition as the order of the Tribunal was set aside.
( 2 ) W. P. No. 778/94 is filed by a stage carriage operator seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents (Secretary and Asst. Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Hyderabad) to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in A. P. No. 29/93 dated 3-1-1994. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Hyderabad filed W. P. No. 1654/94 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad in A. P. No. 29/93 dated 3-1-1994. The petitioner in W. P. No. 778/94 and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are the party-respondents in this writ petition. (The petitioner in W. P. No. 778/94 is referred to hereinafter as the petitioner ).
( 3 ) THUS, the legality of the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in A. P. No. 29/93 falls for consideration in these two writ petitions. By that order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, set aside the order dated 24-12-1992 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority and directed the Secretary, STA to grant the application of the petitioner for two additional single trips on the route -- Parvathipuram to Itchapuram with one more bus and with revised timings.
( 4 ) THE petitioner holds a stage carriage permit to ply on an inter-state route --Parvathipuram to Itchapuram (via) Pala-konda and Sompet. The length of the route is an extent of 225 Kilometers. Under the permit issued to him, he is authorised to make two single trips a day i. e. , one round trip. The same route with the road length of 225 Kms is covered by the approved scheme notified by the State Government under Section 68d (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 through G. O. Ms. No. 1139 (Transport) IV, dated 9-11-1987. The permit is valid upto 17-4-1995. As pointed out by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, the route attained the character of an inter-state route as it passes through an enclave portion in Orissa State. The petitioner filed an application before the Secretary, STA on 27-11-1992 to grant two more additional single trips by inclusion of one more vehicle in the existing permit and to frame revised timings. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in W. P. No. 14252/92, the said application was taken up for consideration by the Secretary, STA who, by his order dated 24-12-1992 declined to grant the petitioner s request. The Secretary. STA held that the variation sought for i. e. , increase in number of trips on the same permit is prohibited by sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and moreover, the application of the petitioner is not saved by the terms of approved scheme. On an appeal filed to the Tribunal, the learned Presiding Officer, relying upon the Judgment of this Court in W. A. Nos. 1083 and 1084/84 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. S. R. T. Corporation, Bangalore v. B. A. Jayaram, AIR 1984 SC 790 took the view that the variation of the conditions of permit by increasing the number of vehicles or trips could be allowed to the existing permit- holders. Incidentally we may mention that the Appellate Tribunal observed that it is not the case of the respondent that there is any overlapping in the said inter-state route. This observation is contrary to the facts and it seems to have blurred the approach of the Tribunal.
( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Transport submits that after the advent of the new Motor Vehicles Act, there is no provision for the grant of a single permit covering more than one vehicle and therefore the request of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Secretary, S. T. A. He points out the difference in the language between Section 48 (3) of the old Act and Section 72 (2) of the new Act. It is also contended by the Government Pleader that in v
