P SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. M V RAMADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of cases raises a point regarding the construction of Rule 212 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules in its relation to Section 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) Facts do not matter much because any answer to the question referred to us does not depend upon the facts of any of these cases. The learned Judges who have referred the main case to us thought that there is conflict of views between Division Benches of this Court as to the scope and application of R. 212 of the Motor vehicles Rules vis-a-vis Section 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Although the order of reference does not expressly say as to on what point there is a conflict, on a reading of the whole order or reference the learned Judges seem to take the view that the opinion expressed in C. Narasa Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1970-2 Andh WR 20) by Chinnappa Reddy, J. accords with the view taken by the learned Judges who referred the case and which they had expressed in W. A. Nos. 50 and 51 of 1969 but it does not accord with the view taken subsequently by the other Division Bench in W.A. No. 4 of 1968. The learned Judges seem to say that while their view was that if considerations other than those mentioned in Rule 212 are allowed to prevail which considerations are taken into account under Section 47, then the very object of the rule would be defeated and any latitude in that behalf would clothe the transport authorities with arbitrariness, the view expressed in W.A. No. 4 of 1968 and followed by Parthasarathi, J. in the instant case was that since the application for the grant of permit ultimately has to be decided under Section 47 (1) of the Act, apart from matters which have to be taken into account mentioned in Rule 212, due regard shall have to be paid to the matters mentioned in Section 47 (1) (a) to (f) . It is because of this supposed conflict that the case has been referred to a Full Bench. The other cases were also referred because the same question was stated to have been involved in these cases. Now Section 47 in so far as it is relevant reads:

(3.) Even a casual reading of this section will make it abundantly plain that the section is couched in mandatory language. It lays down certain matters which the Regional Transport Authority shall take into account and pay due regard to while considering an application for the grant of a stage carriage permit. A reading of clauses (a) to (f) would indicate that while clauses (a) and (e) are more directly relevant at the time of considering the applications under Section 57 (3) of the Act for the grant of stage carriage permit, clauses (b), (c), (d) and (f) are more relevant while the Regional Transport Authority decides to limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted under sub-section also directs the Regional Transport Authority to have regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) have to be considered at two stages, one for the purpose of limiting the number of stage carriages under sub-section (3) and the other at the time when applications for the grant of such permit are considered under Section 57 (3) of the Act.