The grant of a permit on a route which overlaps partially the route notified under a scheme under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is not prohibited if the scheme does not intend to exclude operators holding permit on such a route.

JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal came up before the Division Bench consisting of Raghuvir, J. and Upendralal Waghray, J. The question tl. Qt arose for consideration is whether the approved scheme published under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, through G. O. Ms. No. 606 Home (Transport-V) dated 19-5-1975. in respect of the route Visakhapatnam-Gurnmalakshmipuram. via Vizianagaram, Gajapathinagaram and Parvathipuram, prohibits the grant of a permit on any other notified route on the ground that it overlaps the approved route. Raghuvir, J. held that the route permit cannot be granted as the scheme excludes all route holders. Waghray, J. on the other hand, held that the approved scheme does not totally prohibit the grant of a permit on the route which overlaps only partially. Because of the difference of opinion the matter has come up before me.

( 2 ) THE controversy relates to the grant of a stage carriage permit to the writ-petitioner on the route Vizianagaram to Koraput, via Gajapathinagaram. The State Transport Authority issued a notification calling for applications for the grant of one stage carriage permit on the inter State route in pursuance of an inter-State agreement between Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. The A. P. State Road Transport Corporation and two others applied f or the same. The State Transport Authority by its order dated 5-12-1975 granted the permit to the writ-petitioner D. Ch. Satyanarayana Raju, in preference to the A. P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation" and others. Two appeals were preferred against the said order, to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal i. e. , T. A. No. 44/1976 by the Corporation and T. A. No. 13/1976 by another applicant. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 12-1-1979 dismissed the appeals preferred by the Corporation as well as the other applicant. But at the same time, the Tribunal held that the very grant of a permit on the said route is illegal in view of the provisions of Section 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Tribunal, the original grantee D. Ch. Satyanarayana Raju, preferred the writ petition. The Corporation got itself impleaded as a party-respondent.

( 3 ) IT was contended before the learned single Judge that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the approved scheme notified under G. O. Ms. No. 606 prohibits the grant of a permit on the route in question as the said route does not completely overlap the approved route under the scheme, and therefore, Section 68-FF is not attracted and that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal should be quashed. The learned single. Judge accepted the contention and held that the scheme did not intend to exclude operators holding permits on a route partially overlapping the route notified under the scheme and that therefore the grant of a permit of the route Vizianagaram to Koraput cannot be said to be prohibited either by the scheme or by Secti6n 68-FF of the Act and accordingly allowed the writ petition. Against the said order, the Corporation preferred the present writ appeal.

( 4 ) TO resolve the controversy it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law and the contents of the scheme. Section 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act") is in the following terms: "68-FF. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route : Where a scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 68-D in respect of a notified area or, notified route the State transport Authority, The Regional Transport Authority as the case may be shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For the purpose of this case the rest of the Section need not be quoted. This section lays down that once the scheme is published under ,section 68,d,. ,in respect of any route, the State Tr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document