KARIMNISSA BEGAM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ANTHAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a transport operator plying a stage carriage on the route Sidhout to Neolivedu of a distance of 80 miles and lying wholly within the Cuddapah District. The second respondent is another transport operator plying a stage carriage on the route Tallapula to Rayachoti via Valiveedu of a distance of 70 miles. a major portion of which is in Anantapur District and a small portion of the length of 18 miles in Cuddapah District. The two routes have a common sector between Galiveedu and Rayachoti in Cuddapah District. The Second respondent applied to the Regional Transport Authority Anantapur to vary his permit by allowing him to make a shuttle trip between Galiveedu and Rayachoti. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur varied the permit as requested at its meeting held on 24-12-1966. The petitioner came to know of the variation of the permit of the Second respondent when the second respondent started running a shuttle trip between Galiveedu and Rayachoti. Thereupon the petitioner applied to the Secretary. Regional Transport Authority for a certified copy of the order by which the second respondents permit was varied. Her request for a copy of the order was rejected on the ground that she was not a party to the proceeding. She thereupon filed the present application for the issue of a Writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution to call for the records relating to the Variation of the second respondents permit and to quash the order of variation.

(2.) The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that the Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 209 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules and that as a result of the failure of the Transport Authority to follow the prescribe procedure the petitioner was denied the opportunity of making her representation against the variation of the second respondents permit. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge (Obul Reddi, J.) the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as her permit was left untouched by the order varying the second respondents permit. Our learned brother thought that two decisions of Division Benches of this Court which were cited before him were not consistent with a later decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Narain v. State Transport Authority. AIR 1968 SC 410. He thought that the matter should be heard by a Division Bench of two judges. That is how the case has come before us.

(3.) Now, under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act an application to very the conditions of a permit other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of service above the specified maximum, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Section 57 (3) prescribes that Regional Transport Authority shall publish in the prescribed manner an application for a stage carriage permit and shall invite representations to be submitted in connection with it. Section 45 provides that where an application is in respect of a route lying in more than one region the application should be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the route lies. Section 63 (1) in so far as it is relevant states.