Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : KUMARAYYA
K.Narasinga Rao - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P.by its Secretary, Home Transport III Department, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-10-66
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 47(1), 57(4), 59, 61 - GRANT OF STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - PREFERENCE TO APPLICANT WITH LONG EXPERIENCE, BETTER RECORD OF SERVICE, READY VEHICLE, MORE BUSES, AND INCOME-TAX CERTIFICATE - TRANSFER OF PERMIT WITH SANCTION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY - NOT TRAFFICKING - ORDER OF REMAND BY GOVERNMENT FOR FRESH DISPOSAL ON GROUND OF TRAFFICKING - ERROR OF LAW - WRIT PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a motor transport operator, was granted a stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) over the respondent. The respondent challenged the grant of the permit to the petitioner before the State Transport Authority (STA), which dismissed the appeal. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the Government, which remanded the case to the RTA for fresh disposal on the ground that both the petitioner and the respondent had one or the other disqualification and that the STA ought not to have confirmed the RTA's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Government's order of remand was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court found that the respondent had not proved that the petitioner was guilty of trafficking in permits, which was the only basis for the order of remand. The court also held that the mere transfer of a permit, with the permission of the competent authority, does not amount to trafficking.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government's order of remand was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record? 2. Whether the respondent had proved that the petitioner was guilty of trafficking in permits?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government's order of remand was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record because the respondent had not proved that the petitioner was guilty of trafficking in permits, which was the only basis for the order of remand. 2. The respondent had not proved that the petitioner was guilty of trafficking in permits because the mere transfer of a permit, with the permission of the competent authority, does not amount to trafficking.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Government's order of remand with costs.
( 2 ) THE Petitioner is a motor transport operator plying stage carriages under permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam invited applications by a notification for grant of one stage carriage permit on the route Srikakulam to palasa. Eight operators in all sent their applications. The petitioner was applicant no. 5, the fourth respondent being applicant No. 9. Having notified the said applications in accordance with the procedure laid down in that behalf the Regional transport Authority considered the relative merits of the applicants and eventually granted the permit to the petitioner herein. The fourth respondent s case was rejected on the ground that he produced neither the income-tax clearance certificate nor the solvency certificate. Besides he had only one bus and could not therefore be preferred to operators having more buses. The points in favour of the petitioner which entitled him to preference over any other opera tor were : that he had a long experience in transport field extending over 28 years, that he had a better record of service having no major offences in his history-sheet that he had a ready vehicle for placing it on the route, the route in question being a long route of 54 miles and that he had more buses and had filed the income-tax certificate.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by this order two of the applicants Sri A. Gunnayya and the fourth respondent herein went in appeal before the State Transport Authority. At the time of hearing, Sri Gunnayya did not press his appeal. The appellate authority therefore considered the cases of the petitioner and the 4th respondent only. After considering the contentions raised by them and the available material on record it eventually dismissed the appeal. The respondent during the course of appeal had filed his income-tax clearance certificate and solvency certificate before the appellate authority. It was alleged at the time of arguments that the petitioner herein had transferred his permit on 14th November, 1958, that he was screened for bad history-sheet three times by the Regional Transport Authority before and that he should not have been granted the permit. It was also argued against the petitioner that the marks as given were not correct inasmuch as the ownership of the branch office at Srikakulam was never claimed by the petitioner herein and so he should have been granted only four marks. These contentions did not find favour with the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner s contention before the Appellate authority inter alia were that the fourth respondent herein was not solvent and he did not place a vehicle on the route on two occasions when permits were granted to him which must suggest not only his insolvent state but also his inefficiency. The allegation of inefficiency and failure to take permits granted to him was not denied by the 4th respondent. The appellate aurthority on that score preferred the petitioner who got equal number of marks with the 4th respondent and dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the Regional Transport Authoiity granting the permit to the petitioner herein.
( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up before the Government in revision at the instance of the 4th respondent, it was argued that the petitioner, herein, did not file any certificate of having a branch office at Srikakulam and that he did not file solvency certificate at the time of hearing. It was further contended that the petitioner transferred one permit and that his history-sheet was not good. On this ground it was urged that the petitioner ought not to have been granted permit. As regards the 4th respondent s failure to put the vehicle on the route grante
AI
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.