J C NAGIREDDY Vs. P NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of Obul Reddi J., dated 3-11-1966 made in Writ Petition No, 1153 of 1965, whereby the learned Judge quashed the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Ms. No. 1038 Home (Transport-III). Department, dated 21-5-1965 and gave a direction to the Government to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made by him in his order.

(2.) The central issue in this writ appeal turns upon the true interpretation of certain provisions of Rule 153-D of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, as amended by G. O. Ms. No 2455, Home (Transport-I) dated 25-11-1960 Before dealing with this question, it is necessary to set out briefly the history of this case, which relates to the grant of a stage carriage permit

(3.) The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur at its meeting held on 30-5-1963 considered the question of granting one stage carriage permit on the route Pulivendla to Anantapur. There were sixteen applicants including the appellant (Sri J.C. Nagireddy) and the respondent (Srimati P. Nagamma). After considering the relative merits of the rival claimants in the light of the Rules governing the grant of stage carriage permits, the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the appellant, The decisive factor which weighed with the Regional Transport Authority in granting the permit to the appellant was that he has a full sector qualification whereas his nearest rival has only a partial sector qualification. The claim of the respondent was negatived on the ground that she had been granted a permit in December, 1961 and the grant of another permit in May, 1963 was not justifiable. Against the order of the Regional Transport Authority three of the unsuccessful applicants including the respondent preferred appeals to the Appellate Authority. That authority at its meeting held on 9-10-1964 considered the appeals, set aside the grant made in favour of the appellant and granted the permit to the respondent. The main grounds which weighed with the Appellate Authority in granting the permit to the respondent were first, that it had been the practice to prefer fleet-owners for long distance routes and the route in question was a long route, the respondent held five permits and was a fleet-owner, whereas the appellant held only four permits in all--two permits in Anantapur District and two permits in Kurnool District, and secondly that the respondents history-sheet was "comparatively clean." The Appellate Authority pointed out that the Regional Transport Authority was in error in holding that the grant of the present permit to the respondent would amount to granting permits in quick succession, having regard to the fact that she had been granted a permit as long ago as a year and a half.