K THIRUNAVUKKAVASU CHETTY Vs. SECRETARY S T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions raise identical questions for resolution and so we are inclined to dispose them of by this common judgment Suffice it to mention the facts in W.P.166 of 89 The "petitioner is an interstate operator originally plying on the route Madras to Arambakkam and this route, by virtue of the Inter-State Transport Reciprocal Agreement between the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu notified in G.O.Ms.-No.715 Home (Transport-1) dated 2-6-1975, was allotted to the State of Tamilnadu. He applied to the Tamilnadu State Transport Authority seeking variation of I the route by extension from Madras to Arambakkam as Madras to Sullurpet. When the State Transport Authority, Madras dismissed his application he preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras which by its order dated 23-12-1975 allowed the appeal and granted the variation in consequence of which the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh was asked by its counterpart in Madras to grant concurrence. The State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh rejected the request for concurrence on the ground that a part of the route in question is covered by one of the routes, Nellore to Ramapuram included in the approved scheme published in G.O.Ms.No.1121 dated 8-10-75. The order of the S.T.A., was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and thereafter he filed W.P.No.345 of 1979 in this Court. A learned single judge dismissed the writ petition taking the view that the area between Arambakkarn and Sullurpet is not covered by the Inter-State Agreement and, therefore, the provisions of Sec.68-FF of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 are attracted as a result of which' the' petitioner was not entitled to the permit in respect of variation sought the pro visions of Sec.68-FF of the Act forbid grant of a new permit when a scheme had been published save in cases where the provisions of the scheme itself provide for an exception. The learned judge also expressed the view that an application for variation of a route must necessarily be treated as an application for grant of a new permit by virtue of the provisions of sub-sec.(8) of Sec.57 of the Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, by an interlocutory order of a learned single judge, the S.T.A., Andhra Pradesh was directed to counter-sign the permit without insisting on payment of any tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh. When the writ petition was dismissed on 5-6-79, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal - W.A.No.222 of 79 which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 4-8-87 by a common order along with W.P.No.5881 of 1978. The Division Bench noticed the fact that the relevant approved scheme based upon which the contention was advanced by' the Government that the petitioner was not entitled to countersignature in respect of the variations sought, was not produced and therefore, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal as well as the writ petition observing:

(2.) Shri G. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

(3.) Opposing these contentions, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 26-11-88 agreeing for countersignature has not granted exemption to the petitioner from payment of tax and, therefore, the Secretary, State Transport Authority as the licensing authority under the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is obliged to impose tax on the petitioner for the use of the stage carriage on the extended route; from Arambakkam to Sullurpet.