G HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the existing stage carriage permit holder on the town service route is entitled to challenge grant of permit to the respondent No.2 as it violates the scheme framed under Section 68(c) of Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are as follows: The 2nd respondent applied for grant of a pucca stage carriage permit on the town service route in Guntur town from RTC Bus-stand to Bandarupalli via., Municipal Market, Taluk Office, Gujjanagundla, Pedapalakaluru and Mallavaram, the distance of which is 16 Kms. The petitioners herein are running two buses, one each with fourteen singles per day on the town service route - Bus-stand to Bandarupalli viz., Municipal Market, Collector's Office, Pattabhipuram Main Gate, Gujjanagundla, Pedapalakaluru and Mallavaram, the distance of which is 16 Kms. (2 Km from RTC Bus-stand to Municipal Market and 8 Kms., from Gujjanagundla to Bandarupalli). The 1st respondent by its order dated: 12-12-1990 in RC.No.21328/A2/80 had rejected the application of the 2nd respondent. On appeal the State Transport Appellate Authority in Appeal No36/91, by its order dated: 26-8-1994 remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application of the 2nd respondent, after hearing him and the petitioners. Thereafter the 1st respondent by his proceedings dated: 11-1-1995 granted permit to the 2nd respondent, subject to grant of permission by the Transport Commissioner, as required under Rule 258 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, as the distance of the route outside the Municipal limits exceeds 8 Kms. Hence the writ petition.

(3.) The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under G.O.Ms.No.936, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department,dated :2-11-1987, while approving the scheme protected the holders of existing stage carriage permits, in respect of the town service, under Note 2. Therefore the respondent Mo.2 is not entitled fr a pucca permit in respect of town service as there is overlapping between the route covered by the permit to be granted to the Respondent No.2 and the route approved under the G.O. As such any grant of permit would be in violation of Section 104 of M.V. Act.