G SATYAM Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal and the writ petitions raise a common question of law viz., whether the Regional Transport Authority in Andhra Pradesh can grant special permit under S.63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (Act IV of 1939) (for short 'the Act') to enable a public service vehicle to go empty to any other State to pick up passengers of a contracting party there for their journey and return to home State empty, so they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgement.

(2.) The writ appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother Raghuvir, J., dated August 30, 1982 dismissing writ petition No. 5100 of 1982 following the judgement in G. Shaik Shavalli, Uravakonda v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, AIR 1982 Andh Pra 296 : (1982) 2 Andh LT 7. The petitioners in the said writ petition have been plying tourist buses and contract carriages both within and beyond the State and on the inter-State routes by obtaining special temporary permits. The petitioners submit that tourist parties belonging to neighbouring States such as, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu take the vehicle on contract, in which case the vehicle has to go empty to the places of tourist party to pick up the passengers, bring them back to the place of boarding after completion of the journey and then come back empty to their place in the Home State. It is submitted that S.63(6) of the Act empowers grant of special permit to enable the petitioner and any other operator to ply the vehicle to any other region/State without the counter-signature of the respective Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority. There is an exemption from the payment of taxes for the vehicle in the other State as payment of tax in the home State, is sufficient. But the respondents are preventing the petitioner from carrying the tourist passengers from the places other than the home State, by not granting permit under S.63(6) of the Act, consequently the petitioners' business is adversely affected, which is violative of Art.19(1)(g) the Constitution. In the circumstances the petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant special permit under S.63(6) of the M. V. Act read with Rules 201 and 202 of the Motor Vehicles Rules (for short 'the Rules') to enable them to ply empty from Chittoor to other places in other States viz., Karnataka and Tamil Nadu from where the tourist parties have to be picked up for their to and from journey to the specified places and come back empty to the home State. In the writ petitions also the same relief is claimed.

(3.) No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents.