Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MANOHAR PERSHAD, SHARFUDDIN AHMED
C.Venkatappa Naidu - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-18-66
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 48(3) - TIMING OF STAGE CARRIAGES - CHANGE OF TIMING - APPEAL TO STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - JURISDICTION - GOVERNMENT REVISION - SCOPE - RULE 212(3) OF ANDHRA PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1964 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a stage carriage operator, challenged the order of the State Transport Authority (STA) allowing the appeal of the 4th respondent against the order of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) granting rotation of timings for stage carriages on the Markapur-Nandyal route. The appellant contended that the fixation of timings was not a condition of the permit and that the STA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. He also argued that the Government's order in revision did not show that it had applied its mind to the case and that it did not pay regard to Rule 212(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the fixation of timings was a condition of the permit under Section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the STA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It also held that the Government's order in revision showed that it had applied its mind to the case and that it had taken into consideration the interests of the public and the special circumstances enjoined in Rule 212(3)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964.
Issues: 1. Whether the fixation of timings was a condition of the permit under Section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act? 2. Whether the STA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal? 3. Whether the Government's order in revision showed that it had applied its mind to the case? 4. Whether the Government's order in revision paid regard to Rule 212(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the fixation of timings was a condition of the permit under Section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, following the decision of a Bench of this Court in P. Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 Andh Pra 429. 2. The court held that the STA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the change of timings was a condition of the permit. 3. The court held that the Government's order in revision showed that it had applied its mind to the case, as it dealt with the contentions raised by the appellant. 4. The court held that the Government's order in revision paid regard to Rule 212(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964, as it took into consideration the interests of the public and the special circumstances enjoined in Rule 212(3)(ii).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no merit in the appellant's contentions.
( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Gopalakrishnan Nair dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorarl to quash G. O. Rt. No. 412, Home (Transport III) Department dated 6/02/1965 passed by the Government in Home Department, confirming the order dated 9-10-1884 of the Transport Appellate Authority The facts leading to this appeal are:
( 2 ) THE 4th respondent was plying two stage carriage on the Markapur-Nandyal road. One Venkatasubbarao obtained another stage carriage permit to ply on the same route which was granted with tenative fixed timings. Thereafter he applied for rotation of timings on the route to cover all the buses plied on it. The Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool granted rotation of timings as prayed for by Venkatasubbarao. The 4th respondent thereupon preferred an appeal to the State Transport Authority. That appeal was rejected as time-barred. Aggrieved by the order he filed a revision to the Government which also was dismissed. He thereupon came to this court in Writ Petn. No. 894 of 1959. This petition was dismissed subject to the directions that the Government might consider whether it could condone the delay on the part of the 4th respondent in filing the appeal before the State Transport Authority.
( 3 ) IN pursuance of this observation the Government condoned the delay and remitted the appeal for consideration on merits to the State Transport Authority. That Authority allowed the appeal and sent the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration. The Regional Transport Authority dismissed the petition for rotation of timings. Prior to this, i. e. , on 17-9-1961 the stage carriage of Venkata-Bubba Rao was purchased by the appellant who consequently upon a valid transfer of the permit in his favour for plying stage carriage on the Markapur-Nandyal route filed Writ Petition No. 323 of 1962 against the R. T. As order rejecting Venkatasubba Raos application for rotation of timings. That writ petition was allowed. The matter then went back to the R. T. A. for being considered on the merits The Regional Transport Authority, Kurnool on 21-6-1963 granted an application of the appellant for rotation of timings,
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order of the Regional Transport Authority, the 4th respondent filed an appeal to the State Transport Authority. The State Transport Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the appellant filed a revision to the Government under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act This revision was dismissed. The appellant, therefore, came to this court again in writ petition No. 280 of 1965 which came up before our learned brother Gopala-krishnan Nair, J. Sri Venugopala Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner urged three points before our learned brother. The first contention was that the fixation of timings was not a condition of the permit and that therefore a change of the timing did not involve any change of the condition of the permit Following up this argument, it was further urged by the learned counsel that the 4th respondent, therefore, was not Entitled under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act to prefer an appeal to the S. T. A and that the S. T. A. in passing the orders allowing the 4th respondents appeal acted wholly without jurisdiction. The 2nd contention urged was that the order passed by the Government in the revision did not show that the Government had applied its mind to the case and that it was not a speaking order and has therefore to be set aside. The third contention raised was that the impugned order of the Government did not pay any regard to Rule 212 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Rules Our learned brother repelled the three contentions and dismissed the writ petition. In this writ appeal the same three points are urged by Sri Venugopala Reddy, learned cou
AI
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
