M.S.CHINNA KRISHNASWAMY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submitted an application in the year 2003, before the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor - the first respondent herein, with a request to grant pucca stage carriage permit for town service route from Mahaveer Talkies, Tirupathi to Seshachala Hill View Colony. The first respondent rejected the application through order dated 04.09.2006, observing that the proposed route is a new one and that the same has not been formulated as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal - A.P.No.43/2007 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal - the second respondent herein (for short, the Tribunal)). The appeal was allowed through order dated 21.11.2008. The first respondent was directed to grant stage carriage permit within three months in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.02.2009 to the first respondent stating that though he is under obligation to produce the bus and place the relevant documents within three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal, he could not get the vehicle and prayed for extension of time by four months, to enable him to procure the vehicle. One year thereafter, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 15.02.2010 through an Advocate requesting the second respondent to take necessary action in compliance with the orders passed by the Tribunal. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the inaction on the part of the first respondent in complying with the directions issued by the Tribunal through its order dated 21.11.2008, in the context of granting pucca stage carriage permit as illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to grant permit on the said route to the bus bearing No.T.C.H. 8133.

(3.) Sri T.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the direction issued by the Tribunal was to 'grant' permission in contradistinction to issuance of the permit and it is only when the permit is granted by the first respondent, that the petitioner would be under obligation to produce the bus, and to submit the documents for issuance of permit. He further submits that there was no justification on the part of the first respondent in not granting the permit so far.