K V RAMANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the holder of a transport permit plying on the so called town service route of Vizianagaram to Gantyada. He had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram, for variation of his permit to ply from Vizianagram New Puma to Pentasreeramapuram via Gantyada. The Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram, by its resolution dated 21-3-1983, rejected this application of the petitioner. Aga inst that order of the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner had filed an appeal in R. P. No. 72 of 1983 to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 21-11-1984, allowed the petitioner's appeal and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant the variation of the permit sought for by the petit-'oner. The Regional transport Authority, by its resolution dated 3-4-1985, approved the proposal to grant variation of the route sought for by the petitioner, but wrote to the Transport Commissioner for his concurrence. The Transport Commissioner, by his communication dated 20-5-1985 refused his consent to the proposal of the Regional Transport Authority contained in its resolution dated 3-4-1985. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the proceedings of the transport Commissioner dated 20-5-1985 refusing his concurrence and the validity of Rule 282 (2) (ii) of ths Motor Vehicles Rules, which gives power and jurisdiction to the Transport Commissioner to make the above order.

(2.) Before considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to set out, in brief, a few relevant provisions of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. Chapter IV of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, with which we are now concerned, prordes by Section 44 for the constitution of Transport Authorities. That section says :

(3.) The next argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Rate 282 (2).(ii) is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the exelet that the power of the Transport Commissioner to grant or refuse to grant permission to treat certain routes as town service routes is not hedged by conditions or guidelines. Although I am of the opinion that unbridled 1. power vested in the officers to affect the lives of the citizens or to permit practice of invidious discrimination should be held to be unconstitional, I do not find that this is the situation in this case. The Transport Commissioner, white granting or refusing to grant permission cannot and should not act as a whimsical and arbitrary officer. He must keep in mind the interests of the travelling public to. which reference has been expressly made by Section 47 of; the Act. In my opinion, Section 47, which speaks of the interests of the travelling public, provides sufficient safeguards against the possible abuse of power try the Transport Commissioner. I accordingly hold that the rule is not unconstitutional and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution. No other point has been argued.