REGIONAL MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION GUNTUR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Harinath, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. K.N. Jwala, the learned Counsel for 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Transport.

(2.) Mr. K. Harinath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to grant permit to the 3rd respondent for the route Narasaraopet Palnad bus stand to Nallagarlapadu is not a town service; as such, it is outside the scope of Rule 258 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Relying on the said Rule, he submits that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 258, the Regional Transport Authority has to first determine whether the permit sought for, is a town service route or not and pass an order on its merits.

(3.) In the instant case, the Regional Transport Authority, the 2nd respondent has not determined on record whether the permit sought for, is a town service route or not; as such, the order passed by the 1st respondent suffers from the legal infirmity. He also relied on a recent unreported decision of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.21474 of 1997 and batch, dated 11-8-1998 wherein their Lordships have interpreted sub-rule (2)(ii) of Rule 258 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and held that any applicant for permit claiming the benefit thereof has to necessarily satisfy the Regional Transport Authority that the route for which the permit is sought, is a town service route. It is only on the basis of the Transport Commissioner's permission, the Regional Transport Authority can determine the town service routes.