Skip to content


B. Sambasiva Rao and anr. Vs. R.T.A., Guntur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 2387 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1981AP221
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 54(3), 57(2), 57(3) and 64; Andhra Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1971 - Rules 2, 6 and 6(2)
AppellantB. Sambasiva Rao and anr.
RespondentR.T.A., Guntur and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT. Venkatramana, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader and ;P. Ramakoti, Adv.
DispositionPetition Dismissed
Excerpt:
motor vehicles - grant of permit - sections 57 (2) and (3) and 64 of motor vehicles act, 1939 and rule 6 (c) of a. p. state transport appellate tribunal rules, 1971 - petitioners plying carriages on temporary permit - petitioners filed application claiming grant of pucca permit - regional transport authority rejecting applications and granting permit to respondents - petitioners challenging grant of permit on rejection of application - petitioners cannot be called as objectors under section 57 (3) - held, petitioners not to be successful in obstructing grant before regional transport authority. - - the petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the stage carriage permit and obviously were not successful parties. 9. for the reasons recorded above, the writ petition must fail......section 64 of the act against the order at the regional transport authority, gun-tur before the state transport appellate tribunal, hyderabad. she impleadedonly regional transport authority, gun-tur as the respondent. the state transport appellate tribunal, hyderabad by its order dated 31-5-1978 granted the permit to smt. s. v. ramanannna, gun-tur. in pursuance of the order of the state transport appellate tribunal hyderabad a pucca stage carriage permit was issued to the third respondent to ply on the fair weather route guntur r. t. c. bus stand to pere-cherla junction. the petitioners have now filed this writ petition seeking to quash the grant of permit issued in favour of the third respondent.3. the principal and the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Applications were invited by the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur by a notification issued on 26-3-1977 under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of one pucca stage carriage permit to ply on the fair weather route Guntur R. T. C. Bus Stand to Perocherla Junction. In response to the said notification only one application was received from Smt V. Ramanamma, w/o S. Ch.Narasa Reddy, Guntur. The only application received was notified under Section 57 (3) of the Act inviting representations, if any. In response to this notification, Sri B. Sambasiva Rao and Sri S. Ramalingeswara Rao, the two petitioners in this writ petition and two others filed their representations requesting to issue a fresh notificationunder Section 57 (2) of the Act to enable them also to submit their applications. The first petitioner, namely, B. Sambasiva Rao, however, submitted his application for the grant of pucca permit on11-8-1977. In that representation hestated that he was already running his idle bus on the same route on the strength of a temporary permit issued to him and requested for the grant of a pucca permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Gtmtur considered the applications on 2-11-1977. The application of the first petitioner was rejected as belated. The application of Smt. S. V. Ramanamma, the third respondent was also rejected stating that she is a benami to her husband who holds two stage carriase permits already,

2. The third respondent Smt. S. V. Ramanamma filed an appeal under Section 64 of the Act against the order at the Regional Transport Authority, Gun-tur before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. She impleadedonly Regional Transport Authority, Gun-tur as the respondent. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad by its order dated 31-5-1978 granted the permit to Smt. S. V. Ramanannna, Gun-tur. In pursuance of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad a pucca stage carriage permit was issued to the third respondent to ply on the fair weather route Guntur R. T. C. Bus Stand to Pere-cherla Junction. The petitioners have now filed this writ petition seeking to quash the grant of permit issued in favour of the third respondent.

3. The principal and the foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal acted illegally by allowing the appeal of the third respondent without giving any notice to the petitioners who had made representations under Section 59 (3) of the Act. on the basis of which, the Regional Transport Authority. Guntur relected the application of the third respondent tor the grant of a permit. It is his conten-tion that the petitioners an sucessful parties before the Regional Transport Authority. Gutur since they sucessfully prevented the grant of a permit in lav's our of the third respondent and, therefore, they ought to haw been impleaded as respondents before the State Tranasor Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad by the third respondent under Rule 6 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal Roles, 1971. He also in support of his submission relied on two unreported decisions of this Courtin Writ Petition No. 753 of 1969, D/-1-2-1971 and Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1971, D/- 8-12-1071.

4. The learned Counsel for the third respondent on the other hand submits that the first petitioner was himself an applicant for the grant and the second petitioner never objected to the grant but merely represented that he may be granted some time to submit his application as he could not put in his application within the time prescribed in the notification issued under Section 57 (2) of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners were not objectors and so not entitled to any no-tice by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents, inviting my attention to the provisions of Section 64 of the Act and Rule 6 (c) of the Andhra Pradeah State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1971, argues that in an appeal preferred under Section 64 of the Act only the original authority, the successful party before the original authority and the appellant alone are entitled to be beard by the State Tran-sport Appellate Tribunal.

5. The question, therefore, that arises is whether a person who has made his representation under Section 57 (3) of the Act in pursuance of the notification under Section 57 (2) objecting to the grant of a permit ought to be impleaded as a respondent in an appeal preferred under Section 64 of the Act.

6. To answer the question, it is neces-sary to read first Section 64 of the Act. Section 64, so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads-

'(1) Any person-

(a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or

(b) to (i) xxxxx may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal con-situted under Sub-section (2), who shall, after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final.'

Now, Rule 8 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1971, may be looked at.

'6. (c) In every appeal or revision application, in addition, to the successful parties before the appropriate authority,the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority or the Secretary of either Authority, as the case may be, shall also be made respondent'.

7. A reading of Section 64 and the relevant rule abundantly makes it clear that in an appeal preferred under Section 64 of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the original authority that granted the permit. Rule 6 (c) makes it obligatory on the part of the appellant to implead the successful party before the Rigional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, aa the case may be. as one of the respondents in addition to the original authority that granted the permit. The word 'party' has been denned under Rule 2 (v) to mean the appellant or the applicant or his Pleader. Undoubtedly the petitioners were not successful applicants before the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners urges that the petitioners were successful parties since they succeeded in preventing the grant of a permit to the third respondent. I find it difficult to accept the said contention. The rule contemplates that only the applicant that succeeded before the Reeional Transport Authority should be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal in addition to the original authority that granted the permit. The petitioners were unsuccessful in getting the stage carriage permit and obviously were not successful parties. The two unrepaired decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not relevant for the decision of this case. In Writ Petition No. 753 of 1969 (Andh Pra) the learned Judges were concerned with the right to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 64-A of the Act. The learned Judges held that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked by any person aggrieved by the order of the Begional Transport Authority notwithstanding the fact that he was not a party to the proceedings nor he had been an objector to the grant. In the second unreported case, namely. Writ Petition No. 1023 of 1971 (Andh Pra) Parthasarathi. J. was again concerned only with the right of a suc-cessful representationist before the original authority to be heard by the revi-sional authority. The learned Judge observed :

'In view of the fact that the petitioner has become an effective participant in the proceeding by reason ot the opportunity given by the Regional Transport Authority, he has acquired a standing and eligibility to compel a hearing of his representations by the revisional authority, which under the second proviso, it was obliged to give a reasonable opportunity to persons likely to be prejudiced by an order that was made. The decision rendered by the State Transport Authority without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard must therefore be held to be in contravention of law. It is not in accord with the second proviso. Nor is it ia conformity with the principles of natural justice'.

Thus, in both these decisions the learned Judges were concerned witn the standing and eligibility to file a revision petition or compel a hearing of the representations made by the person aggrieved against the decision of the original authority. The scope and ambit of Rule 6 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1971 did not fall for consideration.

8. Be that as it may it is clear from the record that neither the first petitioner nor the second petitioner made a representation objecting to the grant of a permit. On the other hand, the first petitioner was himself an applicant for the grant at a permit on the ground that he was already plying a bus on the same route on the strength of a temporary permit granted to him, and the second petitioner merely requested for extension of time fixed under the notification issued under Section 57 (2) of the Act to enable him to submit his application for the grant of a permit. Therefore, the petitioners cannot even be called as objectors under Section 57 (3) of the Act who were successful in obstructing the grant of a permit in favour of the third respondent. Hence, it cannot even be said that they were successful in obstructing the grant before the Regional Transport Authority. Guntur.

9. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition must fail. It is ac-cordingly dismissed. No costs, Advo-cate's fee Rs. 150/-.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //