Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, RAMA RAO
A.P.State Road Trans.Corpn. - Appellant
Versus
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
W.A. No. 231/83
Decided On : 07-13-87
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. K Harinath,Mr. T. Venkataramana
Held : Section 45 considered in conjunction with Sec.48 necessarily yields to the conclusion that the State Transport Authority is not empowered to exercise the power of varying the permit and Sec 60 musters this conclusion. The power to vary the permit is specifically adverted to in Sec.48 and the Regional Transport Authority alone is empowered to vary the conditions of the permit as provided under Cl.21 of sub-Sec. (3) of Sec 48 and there is no reference to the exercise of such power by the State Transport Authority. The power of the State Transport Authority under Sec. 60 cannot be equated to variation of the permit as provided in Cl.21 of sub-See (3) of Sec.48 which empowers the Regional Transport Authority alone to vary the permit.
W.A. Allowed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation against the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the orders of the State Transport Authority and the State Transport appellate Tribunal. The 3rd respondent is the holder of permit for the vehicle plying on the road Chittoor to Varadareddypally via. Paradarami and an application is filed for variation of the conditions of the permit by way of increase of 12 more singles and inclusion of one more vehicle in the permit for the bus and the State Transport Authority granted variation. While upholding the orders the learned single Judge followed the decision in w. P. No. 3817/1978 dated 27-12-1978.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant raised two-fold contention namely the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to vary the conditions of permit and even otherwise the inclusion of one more vehicle is not permissible as Sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act authorities (sic) of trips only. The learned counsel for the respondent seeking to sustain the orders contended that the power to grant permit takes in cancellation, suspension or variation as such power is implicit and incidental and Section 57 (3; authorises the variation inclusive of permission for increase of one more vehicle.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the contention regarding the jurisdiction of State Transport authority cannot be permitted at this stage as it was not urged before. As this contention seeks to shut out the contention it cannot be upheld and the appellant is permitted to raise the contention. Section 45 of the Motor vehicles Act specified the authorities empowered to grant permits. Sub-sec. (1) empowers the Regional Transport Authority to issue permits in respect of the vehicles proposed to be used in the State or if the major portion of the proposed route or area lies within the State, sub-section (2) authorises the State Transport authority to issue permit with regard to the vehicle proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States i. e. , inter-state routes. Sections 46 and 47 are concerned with the qualifications necessary for issue of stage carriage and guidelines for issuance of permits. Section 48 deals with ambit of the power to grant permits by the Regional transport Authority and Clause 21 of sub-section (3) of Section 48 dealing with variation is as follows :"the Regional Transport Authority may after giving notice of not less than one month (a) vary the conditions of permits ; (b) attach to permit further conditions. "section 57 (8) without reference to any authority pertains generally to variation of conditions of permit and the treatment of application for variations. Section 60 provides that the Transport Authority which accorded a permit may cancel or suspend the permit for violation of the conditions and it is as follows :"60. Cancellation and suspension of permits : (1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit (a) on the breach of any condition specified in sub-section (3) of section 59, or of any condition contained in the permit, or (b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or; (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle or vehicles covered by the permit, or vehicles covered by the permit, or (d) if the holder of the permi- has obtained the permit by fraud or mis-representation, or (e) if the holder of the permit, not being a private carrier s permit, fails without reasonable cause to use the vehicle or vehicles for the purpose for which the permit was granted, or (f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country ; provided that no permit shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.