Variation of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is prohibited if it alters the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometers, and such variation cannot be treated as a temporary permit unless an application for such a permit has been made by the applicant.

( 1 ) ANDHRA Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for shot Corporation) is the petitioner. It is assailing the orders of the respondent 1, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash its orders in the Revision Petitions Nos. 207 and 213 of 1983, dt. Dec. 14,1983. The first respondent revised the permits issued to the third respondent to ply his bus AAC 5900 and AAC 1100 from Gudur to Bangalore without picking up or setting down passengers in between Gudur and Tirupathi with the proposed timings given by him which were already notified and treating them as tentative timings until the same are revised by appropriate authority.

( 2 ) THE facts not in dispute are that the third respondent was holding a permit in inter-State route to run the vehicles from Tirupathi to Bangalore. He applied for variation of the permit to extend the route up to Gudur, the distance between Tirupati and Gudur being 94 Kms. The request was notified by the second respondent. Objections were raised. The second respondent considered and held that any variation involving alterations of the distance covered by the original route by than more than 24 kilometers cannot be granted. It was also held that the entire length of the extension sought for overlaps the notified route of the corporation. Dissatisfied with this order, the third respondent filed the revision before the first respondent and as stated earlier, the first respondent has allowed the Revision petitions and accordingly granted the permit with the condition referred to above. The main grounds on which the first respondent allowed the revision petition are: So far as the third respondent is concerned he cannot seek variation when the overlapping is more than 24 Kms. but when the authorities grant suo motu, there is no implied prohibition for granting such a variation. Therefore it could be granted. It is also rested its reasoning on another ground, namely, that there is traffic need and the corporation has not been fulfilling the need by running the vehicles over which permits were granted. Therefore when the need is there and when there is no implied prohibition to grant variation the third respondent is justified in asking for variation and the same could be granted subject to the condition imposed. In support of that contention, the first respondent relied upon interim orders passed by a Division Bench of this court in W. A. M. P. No. 785/82 in W. A. No. 455/82.

( 3 ) IN the Writ Petition, Shri Anand Rao, the learned Senior Standing Counsel I for the Corporation, raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, he contended that the variation granted is a pucca variation and the same cannot be granted by operation of proviso to S. 48 (3) (XXI), since, admittedly, the variation will alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 Kms. He further contended that there is an approved scheme between Gudur to Tirupati in G. O. Ms. No. 1119, dt. Oct. 8, 1975, pursuant to which the Corporation has been plying five vehicles covering 29 single trips. Subsequent thereto, there is also a draft scheme published to notify Nellore to Bangalore under S. 68c of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) (for short the Act) and by operation of Ss. 68d, 68f and 68ff, the variation granted to the petitioner amounts to granting a permit over a notified route, which is prohibited under S. 68f and 68ff of the Act. Shri Adinarayana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent 3, on the other hand, contended that the prohibition under S. 48 (3) (xxi) would get attracted only when a request is made by the permit-holder. But, if the authorities suo motu consider in view of the need to grant variation, there is no prohibition over the authorities to grant variation. Therefore, the view of the first respondent is perfectly legal. In support thereof, he relied upon the decision of a single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 1291/71 dt. Oct. 13,1972. Alternatively, he contended th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document