SHAIK AHAMED BASHA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that he has filed anapplication on22-3-96 for the grant of State wide Contract Carriage Permit. But, the authorities are not considering the application dt. 22-3-96. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the statutory duty of the authorities to consider such application with in the shortest possible time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may be pleased to issueawrit of mandamus against the respondents to consider the same.

(2.) The application filed by the petitioner is dated 22-3-96 and from the date of the application not even two months have elapsed, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether in such circumstances, a writ can be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that for the other applications for the grant of contract carriage permit, it is the Regional Transport Authority who is competent and under Rule 132 it is provided that such Regional Transport Authority shall meet not less than once in two months. On this it can be inferred that such application could be considered within two months, but so far as the S.T. A. is concerned he is considering the present application for the State Wide Contract Carriage and for him there cannot be such a time limit. This authority is considering such applications under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act and he is expected to consider applications immediately without any further delay. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to entertain this writ petition and direct the State Transport Authority to consider his application. He further submitted that since the S.T. A. not considered it in a day or two, there is a deemed refusal on the part of the authority in considering the same. I am afraid, this contention cannot be accepted. Under Rule 162 of the AP. Motor Vehicles Rules, it is provided that Rules 132,134,135,137,138, 139 and 149 also apply to the conduct of business to theS.T.A except that it shall not be obligatory to the State Transport Authority to meet not less than once in two months. Under these Rules itmaynot meet atleast once in two months and on the other hand for theR.T.A. it is necessary for them to meet atleast once in two months. From this Rule it follows that so far as the S.T. A. is concerned it may not meet atleast once in two months, 3 months or 4 months. From this it follows that the requirement of two months for consideration of such applications cannot be inferred so far as S.T.A. is concerned. But, in case of R.T.A. such inference that he should necessarily consider such applications within two months is possible because under Rule 132 such authority has to meet atleast once in two months. Therefore, non-consideration of the applicadons within that two months, there could be an inference of deemed refusal. As I have stated above such inference is not possible in case of S.T.A. But, it cannot be said that the S.T.A may not consider the application for years together. It has to meet from time to time to consider such applications within a reasonably short time. It is now brought to my notice that in the instant case the S.T.A. is meeting after 2 years i.e, on 15-4-96. But, in the instant case the application of the petitioner is filed only on 22-3-96 and by this time the number of applications must have been accumulated and if I direct that the application of the petitioner shall be considered it would cause hardship to others who are already in queue.Having regard to these circumstances, in the instant case I cannot infer that there is a deemed refusal on the part of the authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioneron22-3-96. It is an established principle of law that a writ of mandamus does not lie unless there isadeemed refusal. A refusal is a condition precedent for issuing such a writ AIR 1968 AP 350. If an application is not considered within the statutory time there could be a deemed refusal. If no statutory time is fixed and if the said application is not considered within a reasonable time then also Court may infer a deemed refusal. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no refusal but there cannot be a deemed refusal. Having regard to the circumstances narrated above it cannot be said that two weeks time was reasonable for such consideration of the application of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is filed prematuredly and the same cannot be entertained at this stage. It would be also inequitable to issue a writ of mandamus to consider the application of the petitioner on priority ignoring the seniority of the applications already filed. However, it would be always open to the S.T.A. to consider any application if it reaches on the basis of seniority on the day of consideration. Theiefore,I am of the opinion that this writ petition cannot be entertained and accordingly I pass the order as under:

(3.) This writ petition is disposed of as premature.