R SRIHARI NAIDU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In April 1960 the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, acting under S. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 decided to open a new long distance route called Tada to Tada (ring route) and fixed the number of vehicles for which stage carriage permits would be issued at two on that route. In August 1960 a Notification was published under S. 57(2) of the Act inviting applications for the grant of two such stage carriage permits. Several applications received in pursuance of such Notification were notified under S. 57(3) on 18th October, 1960 for submission of representations in connection therewith. Two permits - one to K. Ramachandra Naidu and the other to M/s. Associated Transports (Madras) Private Limited, were granted by the Regional Transport Authority in November 1960. The unsuccessful applicants filed appeals to the Appellate Authority (STAT) who set aside the order granting the two permits on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority itself had not been properly constituted inasmuch as it did not comprise a non-official member as required by S. 44 of the Act and the matter was remanded. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority was properly constituted by including within it a non-official member. However, after it was so properly constituted the Regional Transport Authority did not issue a fresh Notification under S. 57(2) inviting fresh applications but proceeded to consider the several applications that had been received in pursuance of the earlier Notification issued under S. 57(2) and after re-affirming the necessity for the grant of two permits only on that route granted two stage carriage permits one to the appellant (R. Srihari Naidu) and the other to respondent No. 5 (M/s. Navyandhra Labour Transport). In appeals preferred by the aggrieved applicants the Appellate Authority (STAT) confirmed the grant of the stage carriage permit to respondent No. 5 but set aside the permit granted to the appellant and instead granted it to respondent No. 4 (V. Janakirami Reddy). The appellant went in revision to the State Government against the order of the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by the State Government; in other words the grant of the permit to respondent No. 4 in place of the appellant was confirmed The appellant moved the High Court by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. and challenged the order of the State Government passed in revision on 18th March 1969.

(2.) Two grounds were urged in support of .the Writ Petition:(a) that after the Regional Transport Authority had been properly constituted no Notification inviting fresh applications was issued by that Authority but the Authority only considered those applications which had been received by the Secretary of the earlier Body, the Regional Transport Authority invalidly constituted, in breach of S. 44 under the authority that had been delegated by that Body to the Secretary, the contention being that at the time when such earlier Notification was issued under S. 57(2) the delegation of power by such invalidly constituted Authority to its Secretary to issue such Notification would be invalid and therefore, the further proceedings adopted for consideration of such applications and grant of permits pursuant to such consideration was invalid, and (b) that on merits the Appellate Authority ought not to have interfered with the five marks that had been granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority and reduced the same to three and further that the Appellate Authority ought not to have relied upon the only solitary adverse entry in the appellant's record to reject his application while preferring that of respondent No. 4. The High Court rejected both the contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is this decision of the High Court that has been challenged by the appellant before us in this appeal.

(3.) In support of the appeal counsel for the. appellant pressed before us the self-same two contentions that were urged before the High Court. In our view the first contention is liable to be rejected on three grounds. In the first place it was not disputed that applications under S. 57(2) of the Act for the grant of stage carriage permits could be filed voluntarily and without any Notification being issued in that behalf. If that be so the question whether a fresh Notification inviting fresh applications by the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority ought to have been issued or not or whether the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could proceed to act on the earlier Notification issued by the Secretary would be immaterial and of no consequence and the ultimate decision not to grant stage carriage permit to the appellant cannot be ,disturbed on this ground. Secondly in our view the non-issuance of a fresh Notification by the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could, if at all, be made a ground of attack by those persons who were unable to make applications because of such non-issuance and not by the appellant who had made an application in that behalf and who took his chance to obtain the permit on the basis of his application which was in fact considered by the Regional Transport Authority and thereafter by the Appellate Authority. Thirdly sub-s. (2) of S. 134 of the Act provides: