Back
1987 Supreme(AP) 349
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY
A.P.State ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS General Manager, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
D.Ch.Satyanarayana Rajn - Respondent
Decided On : 06-26-87
A scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act which does not provide for total exclusion of all operators plying on any route which overlaps the notified route under the scheme, only partially, does not prohibit the grant of a permit on a route which partially overlaps the notified route.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SCHEME - INTERPRETATION - PROHIBITION OF GRANT OF PERMITS - EXTENT OF PROHIBITION - SCHEME NOT CONTAINING TOTAL PROHIBITION - GRANT OF PERMIT ON ROUTE PARTIALLY OVERLAPPING NOTIFIED ROUTE NOT PROHIBITED.
Fact of the Case:
The issue arose with reference to another inter-state route between Andhra Pradesh and State of Orissa. That route Vizianagaram to Koraput in Orissa. The sector Vizianagaram to Rambhadrapuram is the corridor sector scheme route approved in G. O. 606. The length of the corridor is 40 Kms. The issue arose when State Transport Authority invited applications by notification to accord a permit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the scheme does not provide for total exclusion of all operators plying on any route which overlaps the notified route under the scheme, only partially. In Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mysore state Transport Appellate Tribunal it was held thus : “it is, therefore, apparent that where a private transport owner makes an application to operate on a route, which over laps even a portion of the notified route, i. e. ,where the part of the highway to be used by the private transport owner traverses on a line on the same highway on the notified route, then that application has to be considered only in the light of the scheme as notified. If any conditions are placed then those conditions have to be fulfilled and if there is a total prohibition then the application must be rejected."
Issues: Whether the scheme published under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, through G. O. Ms. No. 606 Home (Transport-V) dt. :19-5-1975, in respect of the route Visakhapatnam-Gumtnalakshmipuram, via Vizianagaram, Gajapathinagaram and Parvalhipurami prohibits the grant of a permit on any other notified route on the ground that it overlaps the approved route.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where the scheme does not intend to exclude operator holding permit on a route partially overlapping the route notified under the scheme, the grant of a permit on such a route cannot be said to be prohibited either by the scheme or by Section 68-FF of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal.
( 1 ) THE issue in the Writ appeal turns on construction of clauses of a route scheme adumbrated by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation ( the Corporation ). The Scheme of the Corporation was approved by the State Government in G. O. 606 on May 19,1975. The route in the scheme is from Visakhaptnam to Gummalakshmipuram. The lenght of the route is 172 Kms. The other particulars of the scheme are not necessary in this case, except clause 4 which specifies number of buses the corporation specifies to run in exclusion of other persons. The content of the para 4 and its meaning is the subject of issue in the writ petition and in the writ appeal.
( 2 ) THE issue arose with reference to another inter-state route betweenandhra Pradesh and State of Orissa. That route Vizianagaram to Koraput in orissa. The sector Vizianagaram to Rambhadrapuram is the corridor sector scheme route approved in G. O. 606. The length of the corridor is 40 Kms. The issue arose when State Transport Authority invited applications by notification to accord a permit.
( 3 ) D. Ch. Satyanarayana Raju, the Corporation and some otherincluding P. Narasimha Raju applied for the route permit. The State Transport authority granted the permit to D. Ch. Satyanarayana Raju. Aggrieved thereby two appeals were lodged. One among the two was by the corporation. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal inter alia held in view of para 4 of G. O. 606 the scheme does not enable the authorities to grant a route permit. The route permit accorded to Satyanarayana raju was thus set aside. This part of the order was founded on the construction of para 4 of the scheme, which was assailed in the writ petition by the grantee of the permit.
( 4 ) A learned single Judge in the order under appeal considered Sec. 68-C, 68-D and 68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act, IV of 1939 and held G. O. 606 be read as a whole ; no part of the scheme should be understood as superfluous. In that context para 4 of column 2 of the scheme was held not to "warrant to construe the statement in column 2 of paragraph 4 as excluding even those operators who hold permits on the routes which overlap the notified route partially".
( 5 ) THE contention of the Corporation was partially recognised and itwas held Note-3 "was only introduced by way of abundant caution". In the order under appeal, two judgments of this Court were referred. One is w. P. No. 73 of 1980 (February 12, 1980), which was reported in 1981 (1) an. W. R. 228 which, on appeal, was reversed. The other decision relied on is W. P. No. 4475 of 1979 (October 22, 1979), in that no clause of the scheme was interpreted. In this case another decision in W. P. 2705 of 1981 (June 17,1981) is cited which states the order under the instant appeal is followed. It is seen from the above facts, the language in each scheme has to be construed. In which case the fact that one scheme was interpreted in in one way or the other, does not help in construing the issue in another case. In fact at the hearing of the appeal, we have scrutinised numerous schemes and see words were employed in the schemes approved by the State government using different words and phrases.
( 6 ) IN the instant case para 4 has to be interpreted. If the unnecessarywords (all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route") are removed, para 4 reads as under : "4. Maximum and Minimum The following number of number of vehicles proposed to be buses are proposed to be operated on each route by the operated to the. . . . . . . . . . State Transport Undertaking to except to the extent specified the exclusion, complete or partial in the note here- or otherwise of other persons. under : note : This scheme shall not affect : 1. The other State Transport Undertakings : 2. The holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes. 3. The existing holders of sta
