K NARASINGA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 4th January, 1965, made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction remanding the case to the Regional Authority for fresh disposal according to law.

(2.) The Petitioner is a motor transport operator plying stage carriages under permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam invited applications by a notification for grant of one stage carriage permit on the route Srikakulam to Palasa. Eight operators in all sent their applications. The petitioner was applicant No. 5, the fourth respondent being applicant No. 9. Having notified the said applications in accordance with the procedure laid down in that behalf the Regional Transport Authority considered the relative merits of the applicants and eventually granted the permit to the petitioner herein. The fourth respondent's case was rejected on the ground that he produced neither the income-tax clearance certificate nor the solvency certificate. Besides he had only one bus and could not therefore be preferred to operators having more buses. The points in favour of the petitioner which entitled him to preference over any other opera tor were : that he had a long experience in transport field extending over 28 years, that he had a better record of service having no major offences in his history-sheet that he had a ready vehicle for placing it on the route, the route in question being a long route of 54 miles and that he had more buses and had filed the income-tax certificate.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order two of the applicants Sri A. Gunnayya and the fourth respondent herein went in appeal before the State Transport Authority. At the time of hearing, Sri Gunnayya did not press his appeal. The appellate authority therefore considered the cases of the petitioner and the 4th respondent only. After considering the contentions raised by them and the available material on record it eventually dismissed the appeal. The respondent during the course of appeal had filed his income-tax clearance certificate and solvency certificate before the appellate authority. It was alleged at the time of arguments that the petitioner herein had transferred his permit on 14th November, 1958, that he was screened for bad history-sheet three times by the Regional Transport Authority before and that he should not have been granted the permit. It was also argued against the petitioner that the marks as given were not correct inasmuch as the ownership of the branch office at Srikakulam was never claimed by the petitioner herein and so he should have been granted only four marks. These contentions did not find favour with the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner's contention before the Appellate Authority inter alia were that the fourth respondent herein was not solvent and he did not place a vehicle on the route on two occasions when permits were granted to him which must suggest not only his insolvent state but also his inefficiency. The allegation of inefficiency and failure to take permits granted to him was not denied by the 4th respondent. The appellate aurthority on that score preferred the petitioner who got equal number of marks with the 4th respondent and dismissed the appeal confirming the orders of the Regional Transport Authoiity granting the permit to the petitioner herein.