A ANNAMALAI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the legal point involved in this case one of us refered the matter to a Bench. The short point that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the primary authority granting the permit can suspend or revoke a permit for breach of the conditions in a different State beyond its Jurisdiction where the permit has been counter-signed by the counter-signing authority of that other State. in other words, does the primary authority has Jurisdiction beyond its territorial limits to suspend or cancel the permit for the breach of any condition by the permit holder within the Jurisdiction of the countersigning authority.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner is a transport operator plying oneof his stage carriages APC 520 on an inter-State route between Choudepalli and Gudiyattam. The permit relating to the portion lying in the State of Andhra Pradesh was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor and for the portion lying in the State of Madras, it was counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot. on a report made by the Motor vehicles Taxation Sub inspector of vellore, North Arcot District to the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor that the petitioner was carrying 27 passengers on 7-2-1957 to Whom tickets were not issued and in excess of the capacity of the bus, chargememo Rc. No. 3124/A2/57 dated 26-2-1957 was issued to the petitoner calling upon him to submit an explanation for violation of theconditions of the permit. The petitioner in his explanation denied the alleged offence, but the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor fount him guilty of the said breach and by proceedings dated 27-9-1957 suspended the permit for a period of six months under S. 60 of the Motor vehicles Act. The petitioner appealed to the state Transport Authority questioning the Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor to suspend the permit granted by the said Authority for an alleged violation of the conditions of the counter permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot. He further denied the offence. The State Transport Authority dismissed the appeal relying on G. O. Ms. No. 1240 dated 3-8-1957 issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh under Which the jurisdiction was alleged to havebeen conferred on the Authority Which granted the primary permit to take action under S. 60 of the Act in respect of the alleged violation of the conditions of the counter permit granted by a different authority. A revision petition under S. 64-A of the Act to the Government was preferred and stay of the operation of the order pending disposal of the revision petition was sought for on 14-12-1959, but sinceno orders were passed and as it was apprehended that the secretary, Regional Transport Authority would take steps to enforce the order of suspension, this writ filed.

(3.) Shri G. Suryanarayana, on behalf of the petitioner, contends that S. 60 of the motor vehicles Act which authorises the Transport Authorith which granted the permit to cancel or suspend the permit for such period as it thinks fit for breach of any of the conditions of the permit and for other reasons specified there in would vest Jurisdiction in the primary authority aloneto cancel, suspend or revoke the permit for breaches of conditions outside the State. He further contends that inasmuch as S. 63 of the Act states that the counter-signing would tantamount to the grant of an independent permit with the conditions or permit imposed by the primary authority as well as any additional conditions that may be imposed by the counter-signing authority. According to him, the Jurisdiction of the counter-signing authority is not co-extensivewith that of the primary authority inasmuch as under S. 63(1) unless there is a counter-signature, the bus cannot ply in that region or State over which the primary authority has no control. Secondly, under sun-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority when counter-signing the permit can attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit, and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted. According to this provision, it is argued, that the conditions in the primary permit may bevaried, as such if the contention of the Government Pleader is to be accepted, it would present an anomalous position, in that, where the primary permit authorises a bus owner to take standing passengers and the counter-signing authority prohibits it, the breach of this condition in the other State could not authorise the primary authority to cancel the permit, because there is no breach of the condition at all. Reference was madeto Ss. 44, 45, 57,60, 63(2) and 64 of the Motor vehicle Act and the several rules made thereunder and to the cases of Lion Automobile Service Co. v. State Transport Authority Madras, 1957-2 Mad LJ 300 at p. 302; M. A. Khair v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 All 227 and Balurghat Kaliagunge Association v. S. T. A., Air 1957 Cal 186 as justifying the view that the violation of conditions of a temporary permit does not entitle the authority to suspend a pucca permit. We may however state that our brother Seshachalapati J. in his Judgement in W. P. Nos. 1065 and 1066 of 1959 (AP) held that S. 60 of the Motor vehicles Act would permit the Regional Transport Authority to cancel the permit for breach of conditions even outside the State. But it is contended that this judgement is based on the point being conceded before him. Be that as it may, we do not find any Jurisdiction for the contentions advanced by thelearned advocatefor the petitioner.