CH SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. S T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the inaction of the State Transport Authority in considering the application of the petitioner dated 9-7-1994 for revision of timings on the inter-State fair weather route Kalyanasingapuram to Narayanapatnam viz., Rayagada and Parvathipuram, in spite of orders of this Court in W.P. No. 21211/94, dated 7-12-1994 directing the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on or before 31-1-1995, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader, Transport was directed to get instructions in the matter. Now the learned Government Pleader informed the Court that the decision could not be taken in the previous meeting and the same is included in the agenda for the next meeting. But at the same time she is not able to say when the previous meeting was held and when the ensuing meeting is going to be held. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that the meeting has taken place on the last occasion on 21-3-1996 and since then no meeting was convened all these months. Though Rule 132 of Motor Vehicles Rules may not be strictly applicable to the proceedings of the State Transport Authority, an authority which is exercising quasi-judicial functions, is expected to act within a reasonable time when a representation has been received from the aggrieved party or when they got information on their own. But unfortunately, in this case, the application was filed on 9-7-1994 and in spite of a direction from this Court to dispose of the application on or before 31-1-1995, the authorities concerned, now state that they have not taken any action in the meeting held on 21-3-1996 and it is not known when it is going to have, its next meeting. Such a conduct on the part of the authorities runs counter to the spirit of the democratic form of the Government. The inaction of the respondent is nothing but abdication of the functions attached to the post which results in miseries to the people who expect redressal of their grievances from the authorities. I hope and trust that the Transport Commissioner shall take into consideration the feelings of this Court and see that the meetings are conducted within a reasonable time on similar lines as the Regional Transport Authority has to meet under Rule 132 of Motor Vehicles Rules to dispose of/transact the business on its file.

(3.) As far as this case is concerned, I direct the concerned authority to conduct the meeting within TWO WEEKS from the date of receipt of copy of this order and pass orders on the application of the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The order should contain the reasons on all the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of his case. The decision of the respondent shall be informed to the petitioner within one week thereafter.