G NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, the action of the respondents, requiring the petitioners to surrender the 'basic permits' issued to the respective vehicles, for the purpose of cancellation; is challenged. The Impugned action is said to be in pursuance of a circular dated 11-12-2006. issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) The petitioners are the owners of contract carriages. All of them were issued basic permits in Form P.C. under Section 74 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 174 of the A. P. Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989 (for short 'the Rules'). The said permits were issued in pursuance of a policy decision taken by the Government and issued in memo, dated 1-6-1991, These permits enabled the respective owners to obtain special permits under sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the Act. The Transport Commissioner issued a circular dated 11-12-2006. stating inter alia that sub-section (8) of Section 88 has since been amended, and it is no longer necessary to issue the basic permits. He instructed all the Regional Transport Authorities to take steps to cancel the basic permits. Acting on the same, the Regional Transport Authorities of the concerned Districts, issued notices to the petitioners, requiring them to surrender the basic permits on or before 31-12-2006, for the purpose of concellation. It was also indicated that, in case the permits are not surrendered, they would be deemed to have been cancelled, with effect from 31-12-2006.

(3.) The petitioners contend that the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the policy decision of the Government, which constituted the basis for issuance of the basic permits; have not been amended in any manner, and that the permits granted to them cannot be cancelled, on the basis of instructions issued by the Transport Commissioner. It is stated that even if there exists any circumstances warranting change the existing policy, it is for the State Government, through the Secretary, to take necessary steps, and the Commissioner does not have the power or jurisdiction to override or annul the existing policy. The petitioners further contend that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act for concellation of permits, except on the grounds of violation of conditions, and as a penal measure. It is also their case that the impugned notices are violative of principles of natural justice, since the decision to cancel the permits was taken without hearing them.