Back
1966 Supreme(AP) 30
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR
Janardhana Rao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 02-09-66
A person who has not applied for a permit on a new bus route and whose business will not be directly affected by the opening of the new route does not have a locus standi to challenge a Government Order issued under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which directs the Regional Transport Authority to open the new route and grant stage carriage permits thereon.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 43-A - VALIDITY - SCOPE - LOCUS STANDI OF PETITIONER - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bus operator, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of a Government Order (G.O.) issued under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which directed the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to open a new bus route and grant two stage carriage permits thereon. The petitioner contended that the G.O. was invalid as it was issued without jurisdiction and that he had a locus standi to challenge it as his business would be affected by the opening of the new route.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was valid and that the G.O. issued thereunder was an administrative order. The court further held that the petitioner did not have a locus standi to challenge the G.O. as he had not applied for a permit on the new route and his business would not be directly affected by the opening of the new route.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is valid? 2. Whether the petitioner has a locus standi to challenge the G.O. issued under Section 43-A? 3. Whether the G.O. is an administrative order or a quasi-judicial order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is valid. The court relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions which had upheld the validity of Section 43-A. The court also noted that the petitioner had not provided any evidence to show that Section 43-A was invalid. 2. The court held that the petitioner did not have a locus standi to challenge the G.O. issued under Section 43-A. The court noted that the petitioner had not applied for a permit on the new route and that his business would not be directly affected by the opening of the new route. The court further noted that the petitioner was not a member of the public who would be affected by the opening of the new route. 3. The court held that the G.O. issued under Section 43-A was an administrative order. The court noted that the G.O. did not decide on individual applications for permits and that it was not a final order. The court further noted that the G.O. was issued in order to open a new route, which is an administrative function.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, Janardhana Rao, has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction, directing the two respondents to forbear from proceeding further in pursuance of their proceedings in G. O. Ms. No. 822 dated 29-4-1963 (Home Transport-III) and the consequential Notification in R. No. 7245-A2-62 dated 7-5-1963. There are two respondents in this case. The first respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Second respondent is the Regional Transport Authority, Sirkakulam. Both are represented by the learned Government Pleader.
( 2 ) THE G. O. runs as follows:- "the Planning and Development wing in the State Transport Authoritys office conducted the survey of the traffic in Srikakulam Dist. at some important places on the route Nivatgam to Vizianagaram vis Srikakulam, Nathavalasa and Denkada and considered the need for opening of new route from Nivagam to Visianagaram via. Srikakulam Nathavalasa and Denkada with two buses on from either end and for the grant of two stage carriage permits in respect of two buses on the above route basis on the statistics gathered during the course of the survey and also for the reasons that there are no direct bus transport facilities connecting the two places. (2) The Government have examined the proposal with reference to the matters set forth in Section 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and are satisfied with the need. . . . .
( 3 ) THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 43-A Madras Amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam to call for applications and place them before the Regional Transport Authority after following the usual procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for opening of new route from Nivagam to Vizianagaram via Srikakulam, Nathavalasa and Denkada with two buses one from either end and for the grant of two stage carriage permits thereon. The Regional Transport Authority, Visakhapatnam should also grant endorsements on the permits granted in respect of two buses on the route in question, for the portion of the route lying in its area. " (3) The Notification by the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam dated 7-5-1963 runs as follows:-"applications are called for under Section 57 (2) of the M. V. Act with a challan for Rs. 12 in prescribed from for the grant of two stage carriage permits on a newly opened route Nivagam to Vizianagaram via Srikakulam Nathavalasa and Denkada for the portion lying in Srikakulam Dist. to start one from either end. "
( 4 ) IN the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has urged as follows. The Government has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition to open a new route and to grant two permits on such a new route. Still, the Government entertained a petition asking for such reliefs which was put in by some persons who were rivals of the petitioner in politics and business. The writ petitioner made representations regarding and above-mentioned petition and urged that there was no need for the proposed new route. But, the Government ultimately passed the impugned Order. S. 43-A (Madras Amendment) is repugnant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by the Central Act, 100 of 1956 and is, therefore, not valid. Even if S. 43-A were valid, the Government can issue under it, only general directions. The directions contained in the G. O. are directions in particular matters of a case and, therefore, do not fall within the purview of S. 43-A. The Government could not have passed G. O. in exercise of its powers under S. 64-A as it was not acting in revision against any order of a lower Tribunal. The action taken by the Regional Transport Authority by issuing notification in pursuance of the G. O. is by way of practically abandoning its (R. T. As) discretion and has, because of
