SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(AP) 314

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY
Radhika - Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
Decided On : 07-13-88

The applicant for pukka stage carriage permit is a person aggrieved against the order of variation of conditions of permit.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 64-A, 68-F(1-D) - PERSON AGGRIEVED - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS OF PERMIT - INTERPRETATION - APPLICANT FOR PUKKA STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT IS A PERSON AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF VARIATION OF CONDITIONS OF PERMIT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners in Writ petition No. 13603/84 made applications under Section 57 (8) for variation of conditions of the permit by increasing additional singles and also one more vehicle to their respective vehicles on the route. The petitioners in Writ petition No. 3693/85 filed an application for grant of pucca stage permit on the route. The State Transport Authority granted variation introducing extra singles and extra bus in respect of itms 6 and 6 (a) and dismissed the application for the grant of pucca stage carriage permit in regard to item No. 6 (b ). The Appellate tribunal entertained the revision and held that the petitioner in Writ petition No. 3693/85 is a person aggrieved. It also held that extra singles cannot be granted. Accordingly the order granted by the State transport Authority was set saide and the appeal of the petitioner in Writ petition No. 3693/85 was also dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the applicant for pukka stage carriage permit is a person aggrieved against the order of variation of conditions of permit. The court also held that the State transport Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant variation of conditions of permit.

Issues: Whether the applicant for pukka stage carriage permit is a person aggrieved against the order of variation of conditions of permit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant for pukka stage carriage permit is a person aggrieved against the order of variation of conditions of permit because if pukka stage carriage permit is granted to Sundara Babu, certainly the existing operators are the aggrieved persons. Similarly if variation of conditions of permit is granted, necessarily the application for the grant of pukka stage carriage permit has to be dismissed. In such an event, the applicant for pukka stage carriage permit is the person aggrieved, against the order of variation of conditions of permit.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the writ petitions.

K. RAMA SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) WRIT petition Nos. 13603/84 and 3693/85 relate to interstate route between Chittoor to Vellore via Katpadi. The petitioners in writ petition No. 13603/84 made applications under Section 57 (8) for variation of conditions of the permit by increasing additional singles and also one more vehicle to their respective vehicles on the route. The petitioners in Writ petition No. 3693/85 filed an application for grant of pucca stage permit on the route. There are two sets of applications by the petitioners for variation of conditions. They are numbered as items 6 and 6 (a ). For pucca stage carriage permit, it is numbered as item No. 6 (b ). By proceedings dated February 16, 1982, the State Transport Authority granted variation introducing extra singles and extra bus in respect of itms 6 and 6 (a) and dismissed the application for the grant of pucca stage carriage permit in regard to item No. 6 (b ). Against these proceedings the petitioner in Writ petition No. 3693/85 filed an appeal No. 415/82. The Appellate tribunal entertained the revision and held that the petitioner in Writ petition No. 3693/85 is a person aggrieved. It is also held that extra singles cannot be granted. Accordingly the order granted by the State transport Authority was set saide and the appeal of the petitioner in Writ petition No. 3693/85 was also dismissed. Against these respective orders, the above two writ petitions have been filed.

( 3 ) SIR Venkataramana learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ petition No. 13603/84, contends that the applicant for pucca stage carriage permit is net the person aggrieved within the meaning of first proviso to Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act IV of 1939. Therefore, the revision is maintainable.

( 4 ) THE question, therefore, is what is the meaning of word "personaggrieved" within the meaning of first proviso to Section 64-A of the Act? section 64-A undoubtedly gives power to entertain revision by the State transport Appellate Tribunal. The proviso reads thus :"provided that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a state Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order. "as stated earlier, the question is what is the meaning to be ascribed to the words "person aggrieved" ? The words "person aggrieved" in the context of the application for grant of permit or for grant of variation means rival person, who makes the necessary claims in that regard. No doubt V. Sundara babu has not filed any objections pursuant to the notice issued under Section 57 (3) of the Act. Instead he made an independent application, which was also notified under Section 57 (3) for the grant of pukka stage carriage permit. If pukka stage carriage permit is granted to Sundara Babu, certainly the existing operators are the aggrieved persons. Similarly if variation of conditions of permit is granted, necessarily the application for the grant of pukka stage carriage permit has to be dismissed. In such an event, the applicant for pukka stage carriage permit is the person aggrieved, against the order of variation of conditions of permit. The person aggrieved must not be a wayfarer or a person, who has no legitimate right to claim. If he is a pro bono publico to say that the applicant is not given relief, certainly such a person is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of first proviso to Section 64-A of the Act. But, if a person makes an application and that application was notified and considered, certainly her is an aggrieved person for the grant of variation of conditions of permit. Considering from this perspective, I have no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioner in Writ petition No. 3693 of 1985 is a person aggrieved for variation of conditions of permit granted to the petitioners in Writ pe




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top