A proposal to modify an approved scheme under S. 68-E of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be treated as a scheme within the meaning of S. 68-F (1-C) of the Act.

P. A. CHOUDARY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two matters relate to the grant of a temporary permit under S. 68-F (1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act in favour of K. Ramulu on the route of Cheept to Boddapadu. The route of Cheepi to Boddapadu is part of another bigger route called Itchapuram to Visakhapatnam, which was notified under S. 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The scheme was approved in the year 1975 and according to the terms of the scheme no private operator could ply his stage carriage on the overlapping route of Cheepi to Baddapadu. It appears, however, the State Transport Undertaking had made certain proposals on 22-9-83 to amend the scheme approved in the year 1975. One of the amendments to the approved scheme proposes to permit the holders of stage carriage permits to ply on such route or routes which partially overlap the proposed route. It appears, Cheepi to Boddapadu might fall within that amendment. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam, taking the view that the route Cheepi to Boddapadu which falls under the proposed amendment of the approved scheme is a scheme within the meaning of s. 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, has earlier granted a temporary permit to Ramulu, the writ petitioner in W. P. 11126 of 1983. That permit was valid only for four months. The said Rakmuluy therefore had applied and obtained an another extension of his temporary permit for period of 145 days. On there of the expiry of that period of 15 days, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam in Rc. No. 8767/a1/80 dt. 21-10-83 invited applications for the grant of one temporary permit on the route of Cheepi to Boddapadu. The said Rakulu filed writ petition No. 9019 of 1983 seeking a writ of mandamus from this court to direct the Secretaru, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam to treat his temporary permit of 15 days as valid till a pucca permit is granted to the State Transport Undertaking under S. 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, when that writ petition came up for admission before our learned brother Seethrama Reddy J. , the learned Judge allowed the writ petition in terms of the prayer of the writ petitioner. The praer of the writ petitioner in that writ petition was to declare that the temporary permit granted to him for a period of 15 days should be valid till a pucca permit was issued to the State Transport undertaking pursuant to the approval of the modified scheme. In other words, this Court in Writ petition No. 9019/83 granted to Ramulu the relief which he could have been entitled to only if S. 68-F (1-C) would apply to the afore-mentioned draft modification of1983. It may be mentioned that in pursuance of this Courts order made in Writ Petition No. 9019 of 1983 the said Ramulu has been plying his vehicle on the route of Cheepi to Boddapadu. In that writ petition, Ramulu made only the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam as a party and that was heard and disposed of at the admission stage without the Court having any benefit of considered arguments by the respondent or any counter form him. However, the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam acting in pursuance of this Courts order in the aforementioned Writ petition No. 9019 of 1983 granted a permit to Ramulu on 22-10-83. Subsequently another rival operator by name B. Ramarao had filed Writ Petition No. 9496 of 1983 objecting to the proposal of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority contained in the above mentioned notification in Rc. No. 8767/a1/80 dt. 21-10-83 to grant temporary permit on the route of Cheepi to Boddapadu. His argument is that no temporary permit can be granted on the route of Cheepi to Boddapadu because, that would be contrary to the terms of the scheme approved in the year1975. That argument is accepted by our learned brother Seetharama Reddy J. , who by another ex parte order in W. P. M. P. 12942/83 suspended the operation of the aforementioned notification in RC No. 8767/a1/80 dt. 21-10-83 of the Regional Transport Auth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document