G SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is to quash the order of the State Government in G. O. Rt. No. 209 Home (Transport III) Dept, dated January 23 1969 confirming the order of the Appellate Authority dt. 23-10-1968. Pursuant to the notification under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued by the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari calling for applications for the grant of one stage carriage permit on the short route Bendamurulanka to Muktheswaram, the petitioner, 4th respondent and four others applied for the permit Representations under Section 57 (3) of the Act have been filed by the respective claimants for the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, by its order dt. April 29, 1967, granted the permit to the petitioner although he was awarded only four marks, in preference to the claim of the 4th respondent who secured five mraks, on the ground that he was a new entrant and that there are two entries in the history sheet of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, the 4th respondent and another preferred appeals. An application to receive additional evidence to show that the 4th respondent has leased his vehicle plying on the route Mukhteswaram to Gogunamattam in favour of third parties, was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority on September 26, 1968. A counter denying the allegations relating to the alleged lease of the vehicle belonging to the 4th respondent was filed by him on 23-10-1968 when the appeal was heard by the Appellate Authority which refused to entertain additional evidence on the ground that it does not relate to an objection raised already in the representations filed under Section 57 (3), as section 57 (A) bars the receipt of such representations at a subsequent stage. On a consideration of the merits, the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Regio nal Transport Authority and granted the permit to the 4th respondent who secured five marks in preference to the petitioner who was awarded only four marks. It was also mentioned that he is an existing operator having 19 miles common sector which comes to 95% of the length of the route in question and his history sheet contains only two entries during the relevant period which do not count for screening. The revision preferred by the petitioner to the State Government was without success. Hence, this writ petition, Sri Babul Reddy for the petitioner contends that the action of the Appellate and Revisional Authorities in refusing to admit additional evidence to prove the lease of the vehicle of the 4th respondent and establish that he was trafficking in permits, is illegal and erroneous and that his client is entitled for the grant as he has better claims than the 4th respondent. Sri Ramakoti for the contesting respondent and the Government Pleader contended contra.

(2.) Upon the facts and the contentions of the respective parties, the following questions arise for decision : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Authority is justified in refusing to admit additional evidence not pertaining to any of the points raised or representations made by any one of the parties under Section 57 (3) of the Act, sought to be adduced by the petitioner? (2) Whether the grant of permit in favour of the 4th respondent by the Appellate Authority, which was confirmed by the State Government, is liable to be quashed ?

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is relevant and necessary to refer to the scheme and intendment of the grant of permits under the Act. Section 47 prescribes the procedure to consider the applications for and grant of stage carriage permits by the Regional Transport Authority It has a statutory duty and obligation, whilelgranting stage carriage permits under the Act, to take into consideration the interests of and advantages to the general public, the adequacy or otherwise of the other passenger transport service operating between the places to be served, the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service, the operation by the application of other transport services, the condition of the roads and any representations by the existing operators or by any association interested to provide transport facilities, or by any local authority or police. Section 57 prescribes the procedure in applying for and granting permits, whether they be of contract, stage or public carriages. Section 57 (2 ) requires an application for stage carriage permit to be filed before the Regional Transport Authority on or before the appointed day. Section 57 (3) provides for making representations or objections in respect of the applications received and published by the Regional Transport Authority. Section 57 (4) prohibits any representation relating to an application referred to in sub-section (3) being considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it was made in writing before the appointed date and a copy thereof was furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. Rule 212 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the rules) classified the routes into three categories i. e. short, medium and long routes. Clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) to Rule 212 says that all things being equal, preference shall be given to new entrants in respect of short routes including shuttle services.