L NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. A ANKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is against the interim orders passed by our learned brother, Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., directing the respondent, pending the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 919 of 1966, to ply a bus on the route Mangalagiri-Viziawada. It appears that two buses have been permitted on this route under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (here-in after called the Act). Applications were called for and the respondent and one Gun-naraju were given permits by the Regional Transport Authority Guntur Against this, a number of appeals were preferred, and the appellate authority set aside the permit granted to the respondent and instead granted a permit to the appellant. In so far as Gunnarajus permit is concerned, it was confirmed. Against this order of the appellate authority, the respondent filed a revision before the Government. No revision was filed against grant of permit to Gun-naraju. The Government by an order dated 20-5-1966 dismissed the revision and confirmed the appellate authoritys order. Pursuant to this order, a permit was issued to the appellant on 24-5-1966 and the respondent was asked to stop plying the bus. In compliance with these orders, the respondent stopped plying the bus from 25-5-1966 onwards.

(2.) Mr. G. Surayanarayana, the learned Advocate for the appellant, says that he was engaged to oppose any application for stay if a Writ Petition was filed in the last Vacation Court and that he was informed by the Advocate who was engaged in that case for the petitioner that he was not going to file any Writ Petition during the vacation. The Courts reopened on 13-6-1966 and the Writ Petition was filed only on the 14th June. It is contended that having allowed available opportunity to lapse, the respondent alone is to blame for creating a situation unfavourable to the grant of stay. It is true that from 25-5-1966 to 14-6-1966 the appellant has been admittedly plying the bus under a permit. The respondents permit had been cancelled and he had not been plying any bus on that route during that period. On 16-6-1966, an interim order was passed and immediately thereafter a petition was filed by the appellant to vacate the interim order, but the order was made absolute on 23-6-1966. This Writ Appeal is against this order.

(3.) Mr. Suryanarayana contends that an order such as the one that has been passed, viz., permitting a third bus to ply on a route where only two buses are authorised to be plied under Section 47(3) of the Act, cannot be legally passed. Vide Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash, AIR 1963 SC 84; see also the observations of Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. in W. P. No. 370 of 1965, D/- 20-4-1966 (Andh Pra), when he found real difficulty in implementation of the interim directions given by the Madras High Court, because under Section 47(3), only one stage carriage permit could be granted on the route, while the Madras High Court granted two permits, on the specific route. In those circumstances, our learned brother observed;