A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Reg.
Trpt. Authority, Ananthapur & ANR. [2009] INSC 244 (9 February 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2009 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (C) Nos.17119-21 of 2005) A.P.S.R.T.C. .....Appellant Reg. Transport
Authority, .....Respondents Ananthapur & Anr.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court allowing the Writ Appeals filed by the respondent No.2. Three Writ
Appeals were disposed of by a common order.
All the three Writ
Appeals were filed by the respondent No.2.
3.
Background
facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Challenge in these
Writ Appeals was to the order passed by learned Single Judge on 1st December,
2004 in W.P.No.3836 of 2004 and batch.
Learned single Judge
allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `STAT') passed in A.P.No.424
of 2003 dated 10-2-2004 granting one pucca stage permit on the town service
route Hindupur Municipal bus Stand to Kothapalli via Mothukapalli, Seva Mandir,
Kodigapalli, Parigi, Dharmapur, Seerepalli and Mudireddipalli in favour of the
respondent no.2 herein. After setting aside the said order, learned single
Judge remitted back the appeal to the appellate Tribunal for fresh
consideration and disposal. Facts in brief, as have been stated, are that
respondent no.2 applied for two pucca stage carriage permits on town service
route Hindupur Municipal bus Stand to Kothapalli via Mothukapalli, Seva Mandir,
Kodigapalli, Parigi, Dharmapur, Seerepalli and Mudireddipalli to perform 12
single trips each per day with night halts at Hindupur Municipal Bus Stand and
Kothapalli. The application was opposed and by proceedings of the Regional
Transport Authority(hereinafter referred to as the `RTA'), Anantapur, dated
June, 2003, the application was rejected on the ground that the prcposed town
service route is a new route and Government alone has to formulate the route
for applying stage carriage permits under the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act") and permission of the
Transport Commissioner had not been obtained by the respondent no.2 under Rule
258 (2)(ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short "the
Rules") for the proposed route. After rejection of the application,
respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the STAT which on 10th Febnruary,
2004 allowed the appeal. The appellate Tribunal took notice of the fact that
one N. Yunus Khan had applied for commissioner in individual cases since
permission had already been granted for the route in question. Not only that,
respondent no.2 had in fact on 29 May, 2002 approached the State Transport
Authority, Andhra Pradesh for requisite permission under rule 258(2)(ii) of the
Rules for operating on the town service route-Hindupur Municipal Bus Stand to
Kothapalli via Mothukupally, Seva Mandir, Kodigipalli, Parigi, Dharmapura,
Seerapalli, Mudireddipalli. With reference to the said application, by
proceedings dated 30 May, 2002, the Transport Commissioner informed the
appellant that since the said route is an existing route, the respondent no.2
has to approach the Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur for further relief.
Accordingly, the respondent no.2 had moved the Regional Transport Authority,
Anantapur, which, by its proceedings dated 7 June, 2003, rejected the
application on the ground that the proposed town service route was a new route
and not an old route and permission of the Transport Commissioner was required.
Only Government can formulate the said route and reference was made by the
Regional Transport Authority to the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act.
Sub-clause (ca) was inserted in sub-Section (3) of Section 68 only with effect
from 14 November, 1994 by Act No.54 of 1994 and this cannot have any
retrospective effect. Only Rule 258(2) (ii) of the Rules was applicable since
N. Yunus Khan had applied for the route in question in 1990 and was granted the
permit to operate on the said route in 1992.
Writ appeal was allowed
primarily on the ground that the route was an existing route as on the date
when sub Section (ca) of sub section 3 of Section 68 of the Act was brought on
the statute book.
4.
Learned
counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the High Court in the Writ
Appeals primarily came to the conclusion that the route in question was an
existing one. The High Court's conclusion was that Rule 258 (2) (ii) of the
Rules was applicable since N. Yunus Khan had applied for the route in question
in 1990 and was granted the permit to operate in the said route in 1992. It is
submitted that the High Court lost sight of the fact that the RTA inter alia
observed as follows:
"On verification
of record of this office it is revealed that the Transport Commissioner, A.P.
in proceedings R. No. 25368/E4/92 dated 24.7.1992 granted permission under Rule
258(2)(ii) of APMV Rules 1989 for variation of existing town service route
Nimkampalli to Boreddypalli as Nimkampalli to Kothapalli belonging to Sri N.
Yunus Khan of Hindupur."
5.
The
STAT observed that the report of the MVI was not correct.
The basis indicated
is apparently not correct. STAT had merely assumed that the present respondent
no.2 had sought permit on the route operated by Shri Siraj, it being an existing
route he was likely to get the permit.
Similarly N. Yunus
Khan was granted permit on the route Hindupur Municipal Bus stand to
Kodigepalli having route length of 17.2. k.m.
Therefore the present
respondent No.2 can be granted permit.
6.
Learned
Single judge found that the factual position was not kept in view and had not
been properly analysed and, therefore, the matter was remanded to STAT. It was
submitted that the learned Single Judge noted that there was no dispute of the
fact that the route applied for in the cases is not the one covered under
Section 68(3) (ca) of the Act.
7.
Learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that in view of the factual scenario
and the analysis made, no interference is called for.
8.
We
find that the conclusions of the Division Bench are quite abrupt. As a matter
of fact, keeping in view the factual position, learned Single Judge has
remanded the matter for a fresh consideration to the STAT.
That being so the
Division Bench ought not to have interfered in the matter.
That being the
position, we set aside the impugned judgment of the high Court and restore that
of learned Single Judge. The order of remand as passed by learned Single Judge
stands affirmed.
9.
The
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extend.
..........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New
Delhi:
Back
Pages: 1 2 3