K SARASWATHI Vs. JOINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 2-1 -1996 passed by the first respondentv i.e., the Joint Transport Commissioner & Secretary, State Transport Authority, A.P., Hyderabad, refusing to convene a timings conference to adjust the timings of the petitioner and the second respondent and referring the petitioner to the Secretary, Transport Authority, Madras for the purpose.

(2.) The petitioner operates two vehicles on the basis of pucca permits granted by the State Transport Authority, A.P., on the inter- State route Pernambat to Kuppam via V. Kota. Subsequently the second respondent was granted temporary permits by the Secretary, S.T.A., Madras, one on the route Vellore to Kuppam via V.Kota and Gudiyatham and the other on Gudiyatham to Kuppam via V.Kota. As the major part of the said routes lies in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the permits obtained by the second respondent were counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of A.P. under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As there was a clash between the timings of the petitioner and the second respondent, the petitioner approached the first respondent with a representation dated 14-12-1995 to hold a timings conference for adjusting the timings of the petitioner and the second respondent. By the impugned memo dated 2-1-1996, the first respondent directed the petitioner to represent the matter before the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Madras, who granted the temporary permits to the second respondent, to hold the tim ings conference to settle the dispute regarding the timings. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Sri Noushad Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the first respondent, who is countersigning authority, is vested with all the powers of the permit granting authority under Section 88(3) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the first respondent, by refusing to hold the timings conference, has abdicated his functions and failed 1 exercise the powers vested in him by law He further contends that the first responden t has a duty to consider the representation made by the petitioner on merits and that he cannotsimply direct the petitionerto approach the State Transport Authority at Madras without applying his mind. In support of his contentions, Mr. Noushad All placed reliance on the judgment in Goverdhan Lai v. State of Bihar (1) AIR 1988 SC 1676 and the decision of the Mysore High Court in M. Akbar v. Mys. State (2) AIR 1969 My sore 242.