R VENAIAH Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders impugned in these writ petitions are similar, if not identical, and therefore, it will be convenient to dispose of all the writ petitions together by a common order.

(2.) Respective writ petitioners filed applications before the second respondent herein for grant of pucca stage carriage permit each on different town service routes. The applications were rejected by the second respondent only on the ground that if permits are granted, they are likely to violate by plying on entire sector of A.P.S.R.T.C. area. The Tribunal also observed that the total distance of route is 32.4 KM of which 7.4. KM is notified under the various schemes of A.P.S.R.T.C. In other words, there was overlapping to the extent of 7.4. KM on the notified route.

(3.) Questioning the said order, writ petitioners filed appeals before the first respondent-Appellate Tribunal contending that when once the overlapping of the notified route is within the permissible limits, second respondent ought to have granted permits and the rejection on the ground that the applicants are likely to violate the entire sector if permits are granted is unsustainable. The Appellate Tribunal, in the orders impugned in these writ petitions, rejected the reasoning of the second respondent that if permits are granted, they are likely to violate the entire sector of A.P.S.R.T.C. However, Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the second respondent directing it to determine the route in question as town service route. To that extent, the said orders are impugned in these writ petitions.