MOHIUDDIN HUSSAIN AFFAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The grievance in this writ petition is that the application filed by the petitioner herein for grant of variation of existing route, has been rejected by the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, without following the procedure contemplated under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The impugned order, dated 24th June, 1963, in L. Dis. No. 8219 of 1962 reads as under:

(2.) There is no reference to the section under which this order has been made. Obviously it is under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner contends that he is a transport operator in Nellore District, plying stage carriage on the route Pamuru to Nellore via Atmakur. Respondents 2 and 3 are plying one bus each with permit on the route Nellore to Vinjamu viz. Atmakur. Respondent 4 plies three stage carriages on the route Kavali to Sitaramapuram and respondent 6 is plying five stage carriages and respondent No. 9 is plying one stage carriage. The petitioner applied for variation of the route before the Regional Transport Authority, Nellore to touch Narwada which is three furlongs from Dattalur-Pamur Road. Two other operators also applied for variation of the route from Nellore to Naravada. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 24th June, 1963, approved the variation in the routes of the other respondents; but the Regional Transport Officer rejected the petitioner's application without placing it before the Regional Transport Authority; thus contravening provisions of section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents' proposals have been improperly accepted. His only grievance is that the Regional Transport Officer was not competent to dispose of his application without placing it before the Transport Authority and complying with the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 57 (3) lays down that: " On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the Office of the Authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations received, shall be considered". Section 57 (4) says : "No representation in connection with an application referred to in sub-section (3) shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representations. "

(3.) Section 57 (8) mentions that an application to vary the conditions of any permit, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. The Regional Transport Officer therefore was bound to follow the procedure laid down in section 57 of the Act and had no authority to dispose of an application under section 47 of the Act. The powers delegated to him under Rule 169 made under the Act do not authorise him to dispose of the stage carriage permits without following the procedure laid down in section 57 (3) of the Act in cases where representations are received; it is only in cases where no representations are received that he is competent to exercise power under section 48 (1) of the Act. Admittedly in this case representations were received and therefore the procedure contemplated under section 57 (3) of the Act had to be followed. The order of the Regional Transport Officer is therefore without authority. Though respondents 2 and 3 filed counter, they are not opposing the petition as they are not affected by the order in this Writ Petition. The order of the Regional Transport Officer is accordingly quashed. The Regional Transport Authority will reconsider the matter in the light of the above observations and dispose of it according to law. Petition allowed. No costs. Petition allowed; order quashed.