DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District filed this writ petition praying to call for the records relating to the order in A.P. No.313 of 1995 dated 12-12-1996, on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same by way of issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order.

(2.) The main controversy between the parties is in relation to the fact whether the route in question is a town service route or not. The 2nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority had recorded a reasoning that the APSRTC is running adequate number of services in the route, in question, and the length of the route is too short for a private operator to operate buses and hence, the Regional Transport Authority feels that there is no necessity for increase of more buses on this route and accordingly, the application had been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent herein, Smt. T.Pushpa- the applicant preferred A.P.No.313 of 1995 before the 1st respondent-the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P. Hyderabad and the appellate authority recorded a finding that the route, in question, is a town service route and hence, the prohibition imposed by the scheme or the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act") would not come in the way of granting permit in favour of the applicant in relation to the said route and accordingly, allowed the appeal by order dated 12-12-1996. Aggrieved by the same, the Divisional Manager, APSRTC., Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District had filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(3.) Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel representing the APSRTC would maintain that the 2nd respondent-Primary authority, in fact, made the order only by circulation and at this stage, no opportunity had been given to the APSRTC. The learned Counsel also pointed out that merely because the route falls within the definition of 'town service route' within the meaning of Rule 258 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, "the Rules"), automatically, the 3rd respondent is not entitled to a permit and it is for the primary authority-Regional Transport Authority to exercise the discretion. When certain findings had been recorded by the primary authority in this regard and the application had been rejected, the appellate authority, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not justified in disturbing the same. The learned Counsel also made certain submissions relating to the meaning of 'all- weather route'. Ultimately, the Counsel had stressed on the interest of the public transport undertaking the APSRTC, which would be involved in the said matter, if the statutory provisions are contravened or if such permits are granted in contravention of the scheme, the statutory provisions and the rules governing the field.