LAWS(APH)-1973-4-25

S A SATTAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On April 10, 1973
S.A.SATTAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother O. Chinnappa Reddy , J. given in W.P. No. 2163 of 1972 on 11-10-1972 whereby the learned judge dismissed the Writ petition. It arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner holds a stage carriage permit to his vehicle plying on the route Cuddapah to Tirupati. He had a bus APD 1669 for which he held the said permit. It appears that the original permit was granted some time in 1955 and since then the permit was renewed without any objection till 1970 every three years. A fresh application for renewal was filed in 1970 with the Regional Transport Authority. It was published inviting objections , if any, for such renewal.

(2.) The 4th respondent herein filed objections under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act objecting to the renewal of permit. He seems to have entered into an agreement with the appellant for the purchase of the bus APD 1669. It is also alleged that in pursuance of the agreement possession of the bus was also given to the 4th respondent . A joint transfer application was filed for transferring the permit relating to the said bus in favour of the 4th respondent. The application was, however rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the transaction was not genuine. During the pendencey of the appeal, the appellant seems to have withdrawn his consent and consequently the appellate authority dismissed the appeal under Rule 251 of the Rules made under the Motor Vehicles Act. On a further revision to the Government, the appellate order was confirmed.

(3.) W.P. No. 710 was filed challenging the order of the Government. It was however dismissed and today we have dismissed the appeal (W.A. No. 601/72). Thus ended the proceedings of transfer of the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent. His objection before the Regional Transport Authority for renewal of the permit was two fold. It was firstly contended that since the appellant was not plying APD 1669 from 1964 after the agreement was executed and as respondent 4 was in possession of the bus and was plying it although the renewals were in the name of the appellant, the renewal should not be granted. The second contention was that the appellant has, in all , during the years 1956 to 1969, transferred 7 permits. He has been trafficking in permits and therefore he is not entitled to renewal of the permit.