Y BHAGYALAKSHMAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of our learned brother Obul Reddi, J. (as he then was) in W. P. No. 2149 of 1972 dismissing the same. The facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are as follows:--

(2.) The appellants husband Y. Muddanna was granted a stage carriage permit for plying a stage carriage on the route Nambulipulikunta to Penugonda. The said Muddanna sought for variation on the route Nambulipulikunta to Penugonda as Nambulipulikunta to Hindupur via Penugonda. On 22-12-1967 the Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, considered the proposal with regard to the variation under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act and rejected the same. The said Muddanna had also applied under Section 57 (3) of the Act for variation of the permit. After due notification calling for objections, and after receiving the representations, the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 18-5-19&8 rejected the said application. Against the said order Muddanna filed a revision petition under Section 64-A of the Act to the State Transport Authority on 19-6-1968. He also preferred another revision petition to the State Transport Authority against the order dated 22-12-1967 of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the proposal for variation on 14-9-1970. Both these revision petitions were heard together and disposed of by the State Transport Authority on 31-10-1970 allowing the revision petitions. Against the said order three of the objectors viz. Sri Janakirem Chetty, Sri B. Srikantaiah and M/s. R. P. & G. T. (P.) Ltd.. Hindupur preferred revision petitions to the Government under Section 64-A of the Act. The revision petitions were purported to be filed against the order of the State Transport Authority allowing both the revision petitions. Subsequent to the filing of the revision petitions, Muddanna, who was impleaded as respondent to the revision petitions, had died on 2-11-1971. But no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record. The Government however, disposed of the revision petitions by a common order in G. O. Rt. 1167 Home (Transport III) Department dated 13-4-1972, allowing the revision petitions, and setting aside the orders of the State Transport Authority and restoring the order of the Regional Transport Authority.

(3.) Challenging this order V. Bhagyalakshmamma the widow of late Muddanna, filed W. P, No. 2149 of 1972 under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The contentions raised in the Writ Petition were that the Government should not have disposed of the revision petitions without issuing a notice to the petitioner, the legal representative of late Muddanna, and without affording an opportunity to her to make her representations, that the Government erred in taking the view that the revision petition filed by late Muddanna on 14-9-1970 before the State Transport Authority against the order dated 22-12-1967 of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the proposal for variation under Section 47 of the Act, was barred by tune and on that ground the application filed by late Muddanna for the grant of variation under Section 57 (3) was liable to be rejected, and that the State Transport Authority passed a common order in the two revision petitions preferred by late Muddanna against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, but only a single revision petition was filed by each of the respondents before the Government against the order of the State Transport Authority. There-fore the Government should not have interfered with the order of the State Transport Authority,