Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI
G.Mahava Rao - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool - Respondent
Decided On : 02-03-69
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Temporary Permits - Grant of - Conditions - Procedure - Opportunity to existing operators to make representations - Section 47 - Applicability.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a holder of a stage carriage permit, challenged the validity of notifications issued under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act calling for applications for the grant of temporary permits for various routes in the District of Kurnool. The petitioner contended that the conditions necessary for the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 were not satisfied, that temporary permits had already been issued in succession in almost all the routes covered by the impugned notification, and that the respondent was abusing its power to grant temporary permits. Further, the petitioner contended that no opportunity was provided for the existing operator like the petitioner to make any representations in the matter of issuing temporary permits as contemplated in section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the requirements of Section 62 for the issue of temporary permits were satisfied and the power conferred under that section was not being abused by the issue of the impugned notification. The court further held that Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the grant of pucca permit, has no application to the case of grant of temporary permits and the notification cannot be attacked on the ground that the petitioner and other existing operators are not being given an opportunity either to make representations or that they are not being heard.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirements of Section 62 for the issue of temporary permits are satisfied and the power conferred under that section is being abused by the issue of the impugned notification? 2. Whether Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the grant of pucca permit, has application to the case of grant of temporary permits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the requirements of Section 62 for the issue of temporary permits were satisfied and the power conferred under that section was not being abused by the issue of the impugned notification. The court observed that the scheme for nationalsation was pending consideration for a considerable time and was finalised recently. Till that time it was not known which routes were going to be nationalised and which were not. At the same time there were representations from the public for the increase of buses, on the routes already existing and to ply buses on new routes. The traffic potentials justified the increase of the transport facilities. Therefore, pending steps for nationalsiation of the buses in such routes where the Government approves the scheme and pending issue of a pucca permits after due notification etc. On the routes which were decided by the Government not to be nationalised it was felt that temporary permits should be issued. In such circumstances it has been held in M P. S. R. T. C Corpn. v. R. T. Authority, AIR 1966 SC 156 that S. 62 (c) applies. 2. The court held that Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the grant of pucca permit, has no application to the case of grant of temporary permits. The court observed that Section 47 occurs in Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act which is headed Control of Transport Vehicles and consists of Sections 42 to 68. Section 47 directs that the Regional Transport Authority shall in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government, or by nay local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction nay part of the proposed route or area lies. It is admitted by the respondent that no such opportunity was given to made any representations in terms of this section, but it is contended that Section 47 has no application at all to the case of a temporary permit, which is governed only by the provisions of Section 62 of the Act and that section does not contemplate giving of an opportunity to anyone, much less to the existing operators to made their representations in the matter of granting of temporary permits.
Final Decision: The court held that the impugned notification calling for applications for temporary permits is valid and the petitioner is not entitled to a writ prohibiting the respondent form proceeding in pursuance of the notifications calling for applications for the grant of temporary permits. However, the court directed the respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to made their representation before the applications for the grant of temporary permits are considered on merits.
( 1 ) IN these Writ Petitions the validity of the notifications made under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act calling for applications for the grant of a temporary permit for various routes in the District of Kurnool is challenged. Though in some cases the notifications are different, the contentions urged against the validity of the notifications are identical and therefore, all the Writ Petitions were heard together.
( 2 ) IT is sufficient, therefore, to set out the contentions in the main Writ Petition No. 4809 of 1968. The petitioner in that Writ Petition alleges that he is the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route Kurnool to Chagalamarri. The District of Kurnool is very much affected by drought conditions and the operators are already finding it difficult to find sufficient traffic for existing buses. While so, the Government issued instructions to the Regional Transport Officers to grant as many temporary permits as possible so that the revenues of the State may be augmented. In pursuance of those directions applications for the grant of temporary permits are being periodically called and the present impugned notification dated 23-10-1968 is one such. The conditions necessary for the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act do not exist. Further, temporary permits have already been issued in succession. In almost all the routes covered by the impugned notification and in cases like the route Nandyal to Atmakur temporary permits were issued on four occasions successively. This shows that the respondent is clearly abusing its power to grant temporary permits. A further contention is raised that the procedure adopted for the granting of temporary permits is merely to call for applications and consider the applications in a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority or on some occasion even by circulation. No opportunity is provided for the existing operator like the petitioner to make any representations in the matter of issuing temporary permits as contemplated in section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the respondent is considering the applications ignoring Rule 212 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules. fro al the above reason, it is stated that the impugned notification calling for applications for temporary permits is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner, therefore prays for the issue of a writ or order of direction prohibiting the respondent form proceeding further in pursuance of the notification dated 23-10-1968 calling for the applications for the grant of a temporary permit on the route Kurnool to Nandikotkur.
( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Hyderabad, it is stated that a draft scheme for nationalsiation of bus Transport in Kurnool District was notified and the same was pending consideration for a considerable time before the Government and was finalised only recently by G. O. Ms. 1103/dt. 1-7-1968 approving the scheme regarding some of the routes and allowing the other routes to be operated by the private operators. Till the final approval of the scheme by government, it was not known which routes were going to be nationalised and which were not in the District. The Regional Transport Authority could not therefore notify new routes or increase the number of buses on existing routes and grant permits on pucca basis as the scheme might be approved at any time and as there was considerable uncertainty as to which routes will be nationalised and which will not be. On all the routes for which applications were called for, for the grant of temporary permits the traffic survey has revealed the need either to increase the buses on the existing routes or put buses on the new routes as the case may be, but early steps could not be taken for grant or permits on pucca basis in the circumstances aforesaid. There were number of representations from the public to the effect that the existing t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
