Y. MUIDANNA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a bus operator on the route Nambulpulikunta to Penukonda in Anantapur district, seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting variation to the 2nd respondent by extending his route from Talamarla to Penukonda. The 2nd respondent is a transport operator palying two of his vehicles on the route Pulivendla to Talamarla. This route is an interdistrict route lying within two districts Anantapur and Cuddapah. As the major portion of the route lay within Anantapur District, the previous permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur. There was a proposal for connecting Penukonda via Talamarla. But that proposal on the objections of the petitioner and two others was rejected on 26-10-1964. Then again on 30-11-1964 the Regional Transport Authority published the application of the 2nd respondent under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act inviting representations from interested persons. After considering the various representations, the Regional Transport Authority reached the conclusion that there was need to connect Penukonda with Pullivendla and granted variation of the permit in favour of 2nd respondent by granting extensions from Talamarla to Penukonda, the extended route being entirely within his district. The petitioner takes exception to this step for his case is that the variation was effected without considering his representations and without affording to him due opportunity and that when once the Regional Transport Authority had rejected the proposal for variation earlier he could not in law review his own resolution and without fresh material within a short time grant variation to the 2nd respondent, that besides variation could not be granted without the prior concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah which could be given only after due publication and inviting representations by the Regional Transport Authority Cuddapah as well and that as the petitioner has common sector to certain extent, namely Kadiri to Ketacheru, he is put to loss and hardship by the grant. It is on these grounds that the variation is sought to be set aside.

(2.) The 2nd respondent resists this petition firstly on the ground that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party as his right to ply stage carriage is not infringed nor any condition of his permit is varied. Further his route is altogether different from the extended route. He has no locus standi to question the variation also because he did not send his representation in response to the publication under Section 57 (3), It was further urged that the legal grounds as taken are not tenable for all that is necessary in such cases (and that only because it is a case of variation even though extended route is wholly within the region of Anantapur) is that the permit will not be valid in the other region unless the same is counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. It is the case of the respondent that the proceedings for counter signature have been in fact started as the Regional Transport Authority of Anantapur has directed him not to ply the bus on the extended route unless and until the permits are duly counter-signed. In these circumstances it is urged that it is not a case for issue of a writ of certiorari especially when the variation was expressly granted in public interest and having due regard to the balance of convenience.

(3.) Mr. Adinarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner raised four points in support of his case. Firstly it is urged that when once proceeding under Section 47 ended in favour of the petitioner within a short period thereafter they could be reopened by acting under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Secondly proceedings under Section 57(3) were valid unless there was a decision taken under Section 47. Thirdly when the petitioner had sent his representation the matter could be decided without giving him a notice. Lastly as the route lies within two districts even in case of variation the procedure to be followed being that of grant of new permit, concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority within the meaning of Rule 209 of the Motor Vehicles Rules was a condition precedent for the grant of permit and that as such a concurrence was obtained the order of variation is bad in law.