V INDRASENA REDDY Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari to quash the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority under section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Nalgonda. The petitioner applied for a renewal of his stage carriage permit. The application for renewal was admittedly made in time and complied with all the requisite formalities. The Regional Transport Authority published the petitioner's application for renewal as required under section 57 (3) read with section 58 (2) of the Act. The only person who raised objection was the third respondent. In his written objections the third respondent stated that there were more than six entries in the history-sheet. of the petitioner relating to offences committed by him. The Regional Transport Authority, after referring to the entries in the history-sheet of the petitioner stated that there were more than six entries in his history sheet as claimed by the third respondent and consequently rejected his renewal application. An appeal to the appellate authority having failed, the petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The relevant portion of rule 212 of the new Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles; Rules is as under :

(3.) It is on the strength of this rule that the Regional Transport Authority declined to grant a renewal in favour of the petitioner. , This iivthe ground which weighed with the appellate authority also in dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, even assuming that rule 212 can apply to applications for renewal, it can come into play only in a case where it is shown that the applicant for renewal had, within the period of time specified in rule 212, actually committed more than six offences under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules. The taking of proceedings for the alleged commission of an offence is quite different from an actual decision or finding that the person proceeded against was guilty of the offence. It is only when decisions or findings that the applicant committed the offences had been recorded in relevant prior proceedings that rule 212 can be invoked. The Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Transport Authority does not appear to have gone beyond the entries in the history-sheet of the petitioner. The history sheet by itself does, not appear to be sufficient for holding that the petitioner had been found by a competent tribunal to have committed more than six offences within the period mentioned in rule 212. In this connection, it is relevant to notice that the entries in the history-sheet of the petitioner do not show that any punishment except warning was inflicted on him. It is not reasonable to think that a person who was found by a competent tribunal to have committed seven or more offences successively under the Motor Vehicles Act, was not given any punishment beyond mere warnings. This circumstance renders probable the plea advanced by the petitioner's learned" Counsel that warnings were issued to the petitioner even though it was not proved and found that he was guilty of the offences.