K. MASTHAN SAHEB Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TR. R & B DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (at the stage of admission) The petitioner in this Writ Petition states that he is plying two stage carriages on the town service route Hindupur to Chowluru under a permit granted by the 2nd respondent from the year 1982 and renewed from time to time. He states that on 16-2-1990, he applied to the 2nd respondent for grant of a pucca permit under Sec. 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (new Act) for plying stage carriage on the new town service route Hindupur Municipal Bus Stand to Gollapuram. The length of the said route is 15.6 K.Ms. When the matter came up for consideration at the meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 28-5-1990, he discovered that two more applicant i.e., respondents 3 and 4 herein also applied for plying stage carriages on the said route. However, the said applications were not taken up for consideration at the meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 28-5-1990 and the matter was adjourned for consideration at the meeting of the 2nd respondent to be held on 20-8-1990 in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the petitioner in support of the Writ Petition, the date of the adjourned meeting is given as 29-8-1990, but in subsequent paragraphs it is given as 20-8-1990. Respondents 3 and 4 are not holding any stage carriage permits. The petitioner's grievance is that under sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 179 of the Andhra Pradesh M. V. Rules, 1989 (New Rules), preference on short routes has to be given to new entrants whenever there is an application or applications from new entrants and that therefore, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider under the said Rule only the applications of respondents 3 and 4 and not his as the route in-question falls in the category of "short routes" being only 15.6 K.Ms. in length. In other words, according to him, the effect of the sub-rule is that as an existing operator with one permit he would not be considered for the grant of the permit for the proposed route in as much as the other two applicants for the permit in question i.e., respondents 3 and 4 are new entrants, who do not hold any permit.

(2.) In this Writ Petition, he seeks a Writ of Mandamus or any other I Writ, order or direction, declaring Clauses (1) and (2) of the said Rule 179 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being ultra vires of Sec. 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for striking down the same.

(3.) The petitioner states that when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force on 1-7-1989, by virtue of Sec. 217 of that Act, the earlier Motor Vehicles Act of 1979 (old Act) stood repealed as also the rules made thereunder other than those mentioned in Clause (2)(a) of the said Sec. 217. According to him Rule 179 of the new A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 made by the 1st respondent in exercise of its powers under Sec. 96 of the new Act though purporting to carry into effect the provisions of the new Act is virtually the reproduction of Rule 212 framed under the 1939 Act which was in force prior to 1-7-1989. The said old Rule 212, as it existed prior to 1-7-1989, was introduced by G. O. Ms. No. 1210-Tr.-1 dated 10-12-1976 published in the Gazette dated 13-1-1977.