Skip to content


V. Vijaya Prasada Rao Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 93 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981AP299
ActsAndhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1948 - Rule 212; Constitution of India - Article 133
AppellantV. Vijaya Prasada Rao
RespondentState Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad and ors.
Appellant AdvocateM.V. Ramana Reddy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateE.P.K. Sikhamani, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....vehicles rules, 1948 - appellant applied for grant of 'pucca' stage carriage permit on certain route - contended that less marks given to him and other party not eligible for any qualification - appellant contending that proviso covers other party - matter regarding determination of liability of proving burden under rule 212 (ii) (a) (ii) - burden is upon appellant to prove that proviso covers other party - evidences not sufficient to discharge burden - held, burden not discharged as evidences to support claim not adduced. (ii) constitution - leave - article 133 of constitution of india - application for leave to appeal to apex court - jurisdiction under article 133 can be exercised only when questions of law are raised - held, leave not to be granted as no potent question of law..........of a temporary permit and secondly because he was exclusively running a stage carriage on the route applied for or on a sector covering the entire route applied for and hence he was not entitled to any marks under the head of 'sector qualification' in view of the proviso to rule 212 (ii) (a) (ii) of the motor vehicles rules. the contention of the respondents was negatived and the tribunal awarded two more marks to the 3rd respondent (applicant no. 2). as he thus secured 4 marks which was the highest number of marks among the applicants, the tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the permit should be given to him. aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed the writ petition 5415 of 1980. before our learned brother jayachandra reddy, j., the same contentions were urged by.....
Judgment:

Kuppuswami, C.J.

1. The appellant, the 3rd respondent and others applied for the grant of a pucca stage carriage permit on the fair, weather route Nandanavanam to Sanam-pudi Via Singarayakonda and Kanumalla. The appellant was applicant No. 5 and the 3rd respondent was applicant No. 2 before the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the appellant, who was applicant No. 5 before him, as he secured 3 marks which was the highest among all me applicants. Applicant No. 2, who was awarded 2 marks, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. He contended that he should have been given 2 more marks on the basis of sector qualification. It was contended before the Tribunal by the respondents that he was not entitled to any marks on the above ground, firstry because he was theholder of a temporary permit and secondly because he was exclusively running a stage carriage on the route applied for or on a sector covering the entire route applied for and hence he was not entitled to any marks under the head of 'sector qualification' in view of the proviso to Rule 212 (ii) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The contention of the respondents was negatived and the Tribunal awarded two more marks to the 3rd respondent (applicant No. 2). As he thus secured 4 marks which was the highest number of marks among the applicants, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that the permit should be given to him. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed the writ petition 5415 of 1980. Before our learned brother Jayachandra Reddy, J., the same contentions were urged by the writ petitioner. Following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in K. Balasubramania v. N. M. San-bandamoorthy, : [1975]3SCR91 , Jaya-cbandra Reddy, J., held that even if the applicant was having a temporary permit, he would be entitled to the marks on sector qualification. Regarding the contention based on the circumstance that under the proviso to Rule 212 (ii) (a) (ii) of the Rules, the learned Judge observed that the Appellate Tribunal had considered that applicant No. 2 was not the exclusive operator on the route and that there are number of vehicles plying on the said route and hence the proviso was not applicable. In the result he dismissed the Writ Petition. This appeal is directed against the said order.

2. There cannol be any doubt having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court lhat the fact that the 3rd respondent was having only a temporary permit does nol make him ineligible for being awarded marks under the head of 'sector qualification'. It is however, strenuously contended by Sri Ram-ana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, that the 3rd respondent is not eligible for any marks under the head of 'sector qualification' us he is exclusively running a stage carriage on the same route applied for or on a sector covering the entire route applied for (vide proviso to Rule 212 (ii) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Rules). He submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that there were other operators on the route applied for and all that the applicant, the 3rd respondent, did was to raise a ground of appeal stating that he is entitled to marks under the head 'sector qualification'. From a perusal of Ihe order of the tribunal it appears to us that the appellant or the other applicants did not contend that the 3rd respondent was the exclusive operator on the route and there were a number of other vehicles playing on the sector of the route. The Appellate Tribunal considered that the second applicant was not the exclusive operator on the route and there are a number of other vehicles plying on the said route and therefore it cannot be said that applicant No. 2 is exclusively running a stage carriage on the said route and the learned Judge agreed with the Tribunal. Sri Ram-ana Reddy, argued that the observations of the Tribunal and of the learned Judge are not based upon any material and hence as the finding is not supported by any evidence, it is liable to be set aside in a writ petition.

3. Under Rule 212 (ii) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, it is stated that marks should be given for sector qualification. If it is within 50% of the total distance of the route applied for, one mark should be given and if it is above 50% two marks should be awarded. There is however, a proviso stating that if the applicant is exclusively running a stage carriage on the same route applied for or on a sector covering the entire route applied for, he shall not be eligible for these marks. It therefore follows that if it is the contention of any party that by reason of the proviso a person is not entitled to marks under the head of 'sector qualification' which he is ordinarily entitled to, the burden is upon them to show that the person conies within the proviso. In other words, the burden was upon the appellant herein to show that he was exclusively running the stage carriage or stage carriages on the same route applied for or on a sector covering the entire route applied for etc. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not show that the appellant herein placed any evidence to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was therefore right in proceeding upon the facts disclosed in the application and in the representation before the authorities by the applicant No. 2. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the judgment of Jayachandra Reddy, J.

4. An oral application for leave to appealto the Supreme Court is made by Sri RamanaReddy. We do not consider that anysubstantial question of law of general importance which requires to be considered by theSupreme Court arises in this case. The application is rejected.


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