Back
1985 Supreme(AP) 61
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.A.CHOUDHARY
. - Appellant
Versus
Reddy v.Jt.Transport Commr.and Secy., S.T.A. - Respondent
Decided On : 02-08-85
The grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act is subject to the satisfaction of the transport authorities regarding the need to increase the number of buses on the draft notified route, and the provisions of Section 68-F (1C) of the Act apply only to the routes which had been draft notified by the State transport undertaking.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 68-F(1C) - TEMPORARY PERMITS - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - SATISFACTION OF TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES REGARDING NEED TO INCREASE NUMBER OF BUSES - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED - PRIORITY TO STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - INTERIM DIRECTIONS - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, motor transport operators, filed writ petitions seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the State Transport authorities to consider their applications for grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F (1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act). The transport authorities were made parties-respondents, but the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) was not made a party, and the petitioners did not allege that the transport authorities had formed any opinion under Section 68-F of the Act that it was necessary in the public interest to increase the number of motor vehicles operating on the area or route or portion covered by any draft notification published under Section 68-C of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that: 1. Under Section 68-F of the Act, a private operator can get a temporary permit only under Section 68-F (1C), and no such permit can be granted without the reaching of requisite satisfaction by the competent transport authority as to the need to increase the number of vehicles operating on the notified route. 2. The transport authorities are required to be satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in a notified area or route or portion thereof, before granting temporary permits under Section 68-F (1A) of the Act, even to the State Transport undertaking. 3. The provisions of Section 68-F (1C) of the Act apply only to the routes which had been draft notified by the State transport undertaking. 4. The theory of carved out routes, where private operators create imaginary routes by combining portions of two or more draft notified routes, cannot be accepted as it subverts the law and destroys the statutory priority granted to the State Transport undertaking. 5. The procedure to be followed for grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F of the Act is that the granting authority should notify its satisfaction, the number of vehicles it proposes to put on the draft notified routes, and should invite applications for those buses. It should then receive applications under Section 68-F and consider those applications so received together with any applications filed earlier before it and dispose them all together according to the scheme of statutory priority granted to the State transport undertaking and applying the criteria of equality, eligibility, and fitness to the private operators. 6. The State Transport undertaking is a necessary and proper party to writ petitions seeking grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F of the Act, as it has a statutory priority in the matter of obtaining such permits. 7. Interim directions can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the courts should exercise this power with caution and only in cases where the petitioners have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favor. 8. The petitioners in these cases did not have a prima facie case or the balance of convenience in their favor, and therefore, the interim directions granting them transport permits were not justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the transport authorities are required to be satisfied about the need to increase the number of buses on a draft notified route before granting temporary permits under Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 68-F (1C) of the Act apply to carved out routes created by private operators? 3. What is the proper procedure to be followed for grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F of the Act? 4. Whether the State Transport undertaking is a necessary and proper party to writ petitions seeking grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F of the Act? 5. Under what circumstances can interim directions be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that under Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, a private operator can get a temporary permit only under Section 68-F (1C), and no such permit can be granted without the reaching of requisite satisfaction by the competent transport authority as to the need to increase the number of vehicles operating on the notified route. 2. The court also held that the transport authorities are required to be satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in a notified area or route or portion thereof, before granting temporary permits under Section 68-F (1A) of the Act, even to the State Transport undertaking. 3. The court further held that the provisions of Section 68-F (1C) of the Act apply only to the routes which had been draft notified by the State transport undertaking. 4. The court also held that the theory of carved out routes, where private operators create imaginary routes by combining portions of two or more draft notified routes, cannot be accepted as it subverts the law and destroys the statutory priority granted to the State Transport undertaking.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs, and the petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 250/- each to the APSRTC for abuse of process of the court. The State Government was also directed to consider and dispose of all the schemes published under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, and now pending before it, within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
( 1 ) IN all these cases the petitioners are motor transport operators. They have filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to compel the State Transport authorities to consider their applications filed by them for grant of temporary permits under Section 68-F (IC) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). These transport authorities alone had been made parties-respondents to these petitions. But, in none of these writ petitions the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to sometimes as "the APSRTC") was made a party and in none of these cases the petitioners had made any allegations to the effect that the competent transport authorities had formed any opinion under Section 68-F of the Act to the effect that it was necessary in the public interest to increase the number of motor vehicles operating on the area or route or portion covered by any draft notification published under S. 68-C of the Act. Just a few days before these writs had been filed into this court, the petitioners had applied to the transport authorities for grant of temporary permits under S. 68-F (IC) of the Act and they are now asking that this court should direct the authorities to consider those applications.
( 2 ) THE applications made by the petitioners for grant of temporary permits are of two types. In some cases, the petitioners are asking for grant of temporary permits on routes draft notified under S. 68-C while in other cases their demand for grant of temporary permits is for routes which were not draft notified, but were artificially formed and created by them out of two or more draft notified routes.
( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that the petitioners had, at the admission stage itself, obtained orders from this Court directing the transport authorities to grant temporary permits to them, pending disposal of their writ petitions and that accordingly the petitioners had obtained transport permits and had been running their vehicles till we had vacated the interim orders.
( 4 ) THESE writ petitions are strongly opposed by the APSRTC and also by rival private operators, both of whom had impleaded themselves in some of these writ petitions as party respondents. Some of these matters when first came before our learned brother Ramaswamy J. the learned Judge had directed them to be posted before a Division Bench for final hearing. In doing so, the learned Judge framed three questions for consideration. Either in the matter of reliefs asked for or in the nature of facts stated there is no difference worth mentioning between one writ petition and the other.
( 5 ) AS the facts are more or less the same in all these writ petitions, we set out in this judgment the facts as stated in one of the writ petitions chose at random.
( 6 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 8597 of 1984 is one Vijayanarasimha Reddy. The affidavit filed in support of the allegations contained in the above W. P. No. 8597 of 1984 was however sworn to by one Chandrasekhara Reddy (not by Vijayanarasimha Reddy ). Those facts sworn to are the following : The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation had published several schemes in Nellore District and that Scheme Nos. 407/77 and 412/77 related to Gangunta to Atmakur via Ananthasagaram and Atmakur to Badwel respectively and that the travelling needs covered by the draft schemes had not been fulfilled so far by providing adequate transport facilities and that the writ petitioner filed an application before the Joint Transport Commissioner and the Secretary, state Transport Authority, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad on 24-5-1984 for the grant of temporary permit under S. 68-F (1c) of the Act and that no orders were passed by the granting authorities on the said application of the petitioner and that if the granting authority had considered the application and granted a permit to the petitioner the travelling public would be very much benefited with the additiona
