LAWS(APH)-1968-6-16

D B SEETHARAMARAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 18, 1968
D.B.SEETHARAMARAJU Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH BY SECRETARY (HOME-DEPT) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of Irdia for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Ardhra Pradesh made in G. O. Rt. No. 918 dated 4th March, 1966 confirming the order of the State Transport Authority dated 24th June, 1965.

(2.) The relevant facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me may briefly be stated. The petitioner is a transport operator plying stage carriage in the Districts of Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam under valid permits. He plies one of his vehicles A. P. S. 1015 on the route Vizianagaram to Kurupam. The Deputy Superintendent of Police checked the vehicle on 22nd September, 1962. It was found that beyond the permitted seats the petitioner had taken 54 passengers. The Regional Transport Officer, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, issued a charge memo asking the explanation of the petitioner as to why his permit should not be suspended since his bus was carrying persons in excess of the seating capacity and it amounted to violation of the conditions of the permit. The petitioner submitted his explanation in which he denied the very fact of inspection of the bus by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He also denied that the bus was overloaded.

(3.) The matter was first considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Srikakulam on 24th January, 1964. The Regional Transport Authority directed the Motor Vehicles Inspector to report about the identity of the vehicle after contacting the witnesses, if possible. The Motor vehicles Inspector recorded the statements of two witnesses. They said that they travelled in the bus on 22nd September, 1962 and that there was no overloading. The Regional Transport Authority considered the case finally on 29th January, 1965 and dropped the proceedings as it did not find any evidence on the basis of which the permit could be suspended.