ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HYDERABAD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDRABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short Corporation) is the petitioner. It is assailing the orders of the respondent 1, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash its orders in the Revision Petitions Nos. 207 and 213 of 1983, dt. Dec. 14, 1983. The first respondent revised the permits issued to the third respondent to ply his bus AAC 5900 and AAC 1100 from Gudur to Bangalore without picking up or setting down passengers in between Gudur and Tirupathi with the proposed timings given by him which were already notified and treating them as tentative timings until the same are revised by appropriate authority.

(2.) The facts not in dispute are that the third respondent was holding a permit in inter-State route to run the vehicles from Tirupati to Bangalore. He applied for variation of the permit to extend the route up to Gudur, the distance between Torupati and Gudur being 94 Kms. The request was notified by the second respondent. Objections were raised. The second respondent considered and held that any variation involving alterations of the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 Kilometers cannot be granted. It was also held that the entire length of the extension sought for overlaps the notified route of the Corporation. Dissatisfied with this order, the third respondent filed the revision before the first respondent and as stated earlier, the first respondent has allowed the Revision petitions and accordingly granted the permit with the condition referred to above. The main grounds on which the first respondent allowed the Revision petitions are: So far as the third respondent is concerned, he cannot seek variation when the overlapping is more than 24 Kms. But, when the authorities grant suo motu, thee is no implied prohibition for granting such a variation. Therefore, it could be granted. It also rested its reasoning on another ground, namely, that there is traffic need and the Corporation has not been fulfilling the need by running the vehicles over which permits were granted. Therefore, when the need is there and when there is no implied prohibition to grant variation, the third respondent is justified in asking for variation and the same could be granted subject to the conditions imposed. In support of that contention, the first respondent relied upon the interim orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. M.P. No. 785/82 in W.A. No. 455/82.

(3.) In the Writ Petition, Shri Anand Rao, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Corporation, raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, he contended that the variation granted is a pucca variation and the same cannot be granted by operation of proviso to S.48 (3) (xxi), since, admittedly, the variation will alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 Kms. He further contended that there is an approved scheme between Gudur to Tirupati in G.O. Ms. No. 1119, dt. Oct, 8, 1975, pursuant to which the Corporation has been plying five vehicles covering 29 single trips. Subsequent thereto, there is also a draft scheme published to notify Nellore to Bangalore under S.68C of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No IV of 1939) (for short the Act) and by operation of Ss. 68D, 68F and 68FF, the variation granted to the petitioner amounts to granting a permit over a notified route, which is prohibited under S.68F and 68FF of the Act. Shri Adinarayana Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent 3, on the other hand, contended that the prohibition under S.48 (3) (xxi) would get attracted only when a request is made by the permit-holder. But, if the authorities suo motu consider in view of the need to grant variation, there is no prohibition over the authorities to grant variation Therefore, the view of the first respondent is perfectly legal. In support thereof, he relied upon the decision of a single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1291/71 dt. Oct. 13, 1972. Alternatively, he contended that the first respondent recorded as a fact that the traffic need exists to grant permit. The Corporation has obtained a permit earlier for four trips. But, in fact, it was running only three trips. Subsequently, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that it has withdrawn one trip and it is running only two trips. As a result, there is a public need for a number of vehicles to be run on the route. If that is so, the grant of variation made by the first respondent could be treated as one under S.68F (1-C), of the Act. There is no prohibition for treating variation to be one as a temporary permit under S.68F (1-C). he also further contended that subsistence of an approved scheme does not operate as a prohibition to grant a temporary permit on a notified route. In support of that, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Syed Jeelam v. S.T.A. Tribunal AIR 19892 Andh Pra 220 and also the decision of Jeevan Reddy, J., in W.P. No. 5986/82dt. Set. 6, 1982, reported in 1982 LS (AP) 222 approved and upheld by Division Bench in W.A. No. 888/82 in its judgment dt. Oct, 22, 1982. He also relied upon the decision rendered in W.P. No. 4475/79 dt. Oct. 22, 1979. In view of these respective contentions, the questions that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the first respondent is justified in law to grant variation of the permit from Tirupati to Gudur? 2. Whether the grant of variation could be treated to be one under S.68F (1-C) of the Act? Rule 260 of the Rules relating to Motor Vehicles in Andhra Pradesh postulates variation of a permit. It adumbrates that, "Upon an application made in writing by the holder of any permit, the Transport Authority may, at any time, vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof, subject to the provisions of S.57 (8) and sub-r. (2) thereof." Section 57 of the Act is a procedural provision. When an application for variation has been made, it has to be notified under S.57 (3) of the Act, and after hearing representations, if any, that may be made, appropriate Orders cold be passed either varying or rejecting the request made. Sub-sec. (8) thereof posits that: "An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by altering the route covered by it or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public carriers permit, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided............." Therefore, when an application is ordered by operation of S.57 (8), it will be treated as granting a new permit. The question is whether it could be done/ Section 48(3) (xxi) adumbrates thus; "that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, (a) vary the conditions of the permit: (b) attach to the permit further conditions; Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (I) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 Kms., and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;" (emphasis is supplied) A reading of the proviso would show that conditions of a permit shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 Kms. Could be done only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof. The language couched in the proviso is in absolute prohibitive terms in respect of variation, where such variation is in excess of 24 Kms. The emgargo created under the proviso is in absolute terms. Question is whether the authorities can suo motu vary the permit transgressing he legislative inhibition when the language couched is in explicit prohibitive terms. It is not permissible for the authorities acting under the Act, to travel behind (beyond?) the provision and grant variation when admittedly the variation alters the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kms. Variation is to be made only on an application and on following the procedure prescribed under S.57. the facts in the case of Murugappa Mudaliar v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chittor (W.P. No. 1291/71, decided on 13-10-1972) are that the petition was plying a stage carriage on the route Puttur to Chittoor. An application was made for variation of the conditions of the permit. Challenging that, a petition for a writ of prohibition was filed. It was contended that the Act did not authorise temporary variation of a route. After considering Ss.57 and 62 of the Act, the Court held: