S A SATTAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to quash the orders of the State Government setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanding the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah for disposal.

(2.) The material facts leading to this writ petition may briefly be stated; The petitioner, the 4th respondent herein and 14 others applied for the grant of state carriage permits on the route Cuddapah to Ahobilam. Though the petitioner had applied for one permit on the route, the 4th respondent was the applicant for two permits. The Regional Transport Authority awarded four marks to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent but granted both the permits to the 4th respondent on 20-2-1963. it was also found that the applicants 2 and 3 are the sons of applicant No. 4 and all of them are living jointly having joint business and they owned five permits and the route being a medium one, the 4th respondent was preferred to applicants 2 and 3. On appeal, the Appellate Authority awarded five marks to the petitioner and four to the 4th respondent and granted one permit to the petitioner on 18-9-1964. It was observed that it was not satisfactorily proved that the petitioner and his brother remembers of a joint family and hence, their claims could be separately considered. The revision petition filed by the 4th respondent against the grant of one permit to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority was allowed by the State Government by its order dated 14-6-1965, setting aside the grant of the permit by the Appellate Authority to the petitioner herein. Thereupon the Writ Petition No. 15/66 filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court on 5/04/1968 quashing the order of the State Government. It was observed in the judgment that the State Government has neither affirmed the view of the Appellate Authority nor agreed with the Regional Transport Authority in awarding marks to the petitioner. It was further observed that "the Government has not categorically found whether the petitioner, his brother and father have a joint business and they can therefore be considered as fleet owners. All these points have not been considered by the Government at all." The matter was, therefore, remitted to the State Government to reconsider the Revision Petition afresh in the light of what was sated by this Court. The State Government passed the impugned order arsenate to the decision of this Court in the aforesaid revision petition. It reads:- "2. In pursuance of the above remand order of the High Court the revision petition of the Manager of Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Devasthanam. Ahobilam, has been examined with references to the connected records of the lower authorities and the representation of the respondent keeping in view the observations of the High Court in its Judgment in Writ Petition No. 15 of 1966. 3. The revision petitioner has mainly contended that the Appellate Authority failed to consider that the Regional Transport Authority Cuddapah granted him both the permits in the interests of the public and the pilgrims traveling between Cudapah and Ahobilam, and also considering that the entire profits of this transport business would go to the public charities like schools and the like; and that the said authority failed to understand and construe the order of the Government regarding quick succession; and that the respondent Sri S.A. Sattar was having joint business with his brother and father, owning a flex of bases, but depleted the strength of their fleet to enable them to get some more permits. The petitioner has therefore requested to set aside the orders of the Appellate Authority reversing the order of the Regional Transport Authority reversing him the second permit also, and to confirm the orders of the Regional Transport Authority. Cuddapah. 4. From the connected records, it is seen that the evaluation of the individual merits by the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah especially awarding of marks, was not done in accordance with the rules. The awarding of 4 marks to Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam. Ahbilam for the Common sector without taking into consideration the aspects of the residential and business place, is obviously wrong. It is also not clear how the Appellate Authority was satisfied that the respondent Sri S. A. Sattar was not a member of the joint family of Sri Mohd. Husain, who, according to the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah, for fresh disposal according to law. 5. The Government accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the case back to the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah for fresh disposal according to law." Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(3.) Smt. Amaewswari, for the petitioner, contends that the awarding of five and four marks to the petitioner and the 4th respondent respective by the Appellate Authority is valid and justified and the State Government has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders of grant of permit to her client made by the Appellate Authority and remand the case to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal according to law. This claim of the petitioner is opposed by the Government Pleader and Sri Kodanading inter alia that the petitioner is only be behamnidar for the benefit of the members of the family having joint transport business and owning a fleet of buses and is not entitled for the grant of the permit in preference to the claims of the 4th respondent and there is no merit in this Writ Petition.