P SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. M V RANADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Reddi Pantulu. the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 452 of 1971, at the outset brought to our notice that the judgment under appeal rendered by Parthasarathi, J., following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 4 of 1968, seems to run contrary to the view taken by another Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 50 and 51 of 1969 and therefore the controversy as regards the scope and applicability of rule 212 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules needs to be resolved by a Full Bench.

(2.) The writ petition, W.P. No 3387 of 1969 out of which W.A. No. 452 of 1971 arises, came to be filed undei the following circumstances. The petitioner (Suryanarayana Raju) along with some others filed Writ Petitions Nos. 1089, 1283 and 1857 of 1965 questioning the grant of stage carriage permits on medium route by the revisional authority which set aside the order of the appellate authority granting a permit to the petitioner on the ground that the Government, in so revising the order of the appellate authority, had ignored rule 153-D (A) (it) of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. Various arguments were addressed before Chinnappa Reddy, J. by the contesting parties but it is not necessary to refer to all the points urged before him. The main controversy before the learned Judge was whether the Government could ignore the requirements laid down in rule 153-D in choosing operators for the grant of a permit invoking section 47 (I) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act which says that in considering applications for a stage carriage permit, the authority shall have regard to the irterests of the public generally. The learned Judge construing the provisions of the rule as also section 47 (I) (a) expressed his view thus:

(3.) Mr. Reddi Pantulu relying upon rule 212 (I) (ii) (correspornding to the old rule 153-D (A) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Rules contended that other things being-equal (in this case all the three operators having obtained equal number of marks) preference should be given to applicants with 1 to 4 stage carriage permits and as the petitioner had only two stage carriage permits he should have been preferred to M/s. Ramadas Motor Transport (Pvt.) Ltd., and Sri M. V. Ramadas who were having more than, five stage carriage permits and the order does not disclose what is the public interest that was taken into consideration in ignoring the requirements of rule 212.