( 1 ) THESE writ appeals have been referred to a Full Bench for considering the question whether the existing holders of stage carriage permits are entitled to submit representations and are also entitled to be heard before the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.) when it is considering fresh applications filed after 1-7-1989. under Section 70 read with Sections 71, 72 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Incidentally the question has arisen whether the said existing operators are entitled to copies of the applications filed by new applicants under Rule 166 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). As the points arising in all the writ appeals are common it will be sufficient to refer to the facts in W. A. No. 795 of 1990 arising out of W. P. No. 14987 of 1989. The writ petitioner therein (respondent in the writ appeal) is holding a pucca stage carriage permit on the town service route in Gutur town from Syamalanagar to Sivareddipalem via Pattabhipuram, Kanakaragunta Gate, State Bank of India and old Bus Stand, the distance of which is 8k. Ms. , is running 24 single trips per day. The petitioner states that there is one more bus in his route making 24 single trips per day, that there are 22 buses having 7k. Ms. of common sector from Syamalanagar to R. T. C. bus stand, in all making 440 single trips per day and that there are about 100 buses belonging to the R. T. C. covering the above route fully. According to, the petitioner there is no existing need to provide any additional transport facilities in the above route or on its sector and that even the existing transport facilities are more than the need and he states that he is suffering heavy loss for want of passengers in his bus. He also states that he is the oldest operator on the said route. Coming to know that certain fresh applications have been made for grant of pucca stage carriage permits on certain routes in Guntur town covering his route, the writ petitioner filed an application dated 17-10-1989 before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur (1st appellant), requesting him to furnish him certified copies of various new applications filed, covering the petitioner s route with a view to enable him "to file representation against the (sic) end to approach higher authorities if necessary". The 1st appellant refused to grant the same by endorsement dated 21-10-1989 stating that it is not possible to comply with the request as there are a number of applications received for grant of stage carriage permits on various sectors of the town. It was further stated that the writ petitioner may as well ascertain the information from the copy of the agenda published in the notice board of the office of the R. T. A. Then the petitioner filed the present writ petition stating that under Rule 166 of the Rules he is entitled to certified copies of the said applications. The petitioner also contended that there is no need to grant any permit on the route, that no traffic survey was conducted to find out the need, that there are no representations from the public for additional transport facilities and that no permit can legally be granted unless such need is first established. Thus the very receipt of applications is illegal. According to the petitioner, the agenda of the meeting will be published only on the date of consideration of the applications by the R. T. A. that the agenda does not contain all the particulars mentioned in the various applications and that therefore the writ petitioner cannot make any effective representation. The meeting was proposed to take place on 27-10-1989 and the permits were to be granted on the routes overlapping the writ petitioner s route, he would suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The petitioner therefore prays for the issue of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the orders of the 1st appellant dated 21-10-1989, refusing to grant certified copies and for a positive

Click Here to Read the rest of this document