P SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One P.Satyanarayana has filed two petitions, one for the Writ of certiorari and another for a mandamus. He has also filed an appeal against the order by a learned judge of this Court, refusing to stay the orders challenged by the petitioner for certiorari. The circumstances, under which those came to be instituted, may be shortly stated. The petitioner was operating one out of ten buses or Pamarru-Bantumalli route in Krishna District. Five of these start from Pamarru and the remaining start from Bantumalli. Prior to 6-10-1956, each of the nine buses cm the route was permitted to ply two single trips; but the petitioners bus was allowed four single trips per day. The said route overlaos to a large extent another route from Pamarru to Upturn, on which eleven buses were plying. Each of these was also then doing two single trips. Some changes are alleged, to have been made m 1953 by the Regional Transport Officer; but the Government had then set aside the orders and the earlier arrangement had thereby continued. A writ petition also against the Government order appears to have been dismissed by the Madras High Court. Again some of the operators on the route sought in 1954 additional trips from the Regional Transport Authority of Krishna District; but the Board had, after review of the whole position, rejected the request on the ground that it would adversely affect the interests of several other overlapping routes, no public purpose would be served and the existing traffic did not justify it. In the end of 1956, however, the Secretary, R. T. A., has introduced several changes by modifications in timings and these have been confirmed in 1957. They have been objected to and are sought to be quashed by the petition for certiorari, which was filed in May, 1957. The first change was through tentative timings that were issued on 16-10-1956 and thereby additional trips to three buses besides the existing bus were allowed on Pemarru --Bantumalli route. Thereafter the four single trips per day came to be enjoyed by buses owned by others and an additional shuttle trip was given to the two postal buses. Objections were called for against the aforesaid timings and as a result of the discussions with the operators the timings were cancelled and revised tentative timings were notified on 30/11/1956. Again a meeting of the concerned bus operators was convened on 18/01/1957, at which all the operators were present. The notified tentative timings were again cancelled and fresh tentative timings were notified on 20/02/1957. After convening a conference of all the operators the Regional Transport Officer has on 18/04/1957 confirmed the tentative timings notified on 20/02/1957 in respect of the buses operating on Pamarru-Bantumalli route, and the times notified on 30/11/1956 in respect of the buses plying on Pamarru-Upputeru route. Thereafter the petition for writ of certiorari, W.P. 329/57 was filed and the cancellation of the four orders was sought on grounds that we shall mention later in this judgment. There was only one respondent to this writ petition and the petitioner had filed a miscellaneous petition No. 3402/57 seeking stay of the order. On this petition notice was ordered by the High Court on 30/04/1957. Meanwhile some of the operators who had got the additional trips applied for being impleaded. They also objected that the writ petitioner had another remedy by way of revision to the Government and the petitioner appears to have filed such a revision. He also obtained a stay order on 9/05/1957; but the Government subsequently cancelled the stay order. It is said that this was done on its being made aware of the writ proceedings. The petitioner has thereupon filed another writ petition No. 395/ 57 complaining that summarily vacating the stay orders while keeping the revision petition alive was improper and mandamus should be issued directing the stay order to be kept alive while the revision petition be pending. This writ petition needs no further adjudication because the revision has since been dismissed by the Government.

(2.) But to continue with the narration of events that has led to the appeal before us, the C.M.P. 3402/57 seeking the stay of the orders challenged by the petition for certiorari came up before a leared Judge of this Court and he has disallowed it. Against this judgment W.A. 91/57 has been filed. There is yet another writ petition tagged to the main one. The original writ petitioner was only a hire purchaser of the bus he was operating and one Venkatachala Sarma claims to have got the bus due to apprehension of non-payment of the instalments. He further claims to have got the vehicles permit transferred in his name. He has therefore filed a writ petition No. 1374/58 challenging the four orders and has also applied to be substituted as a petitioner in the writ Appeal.

(3.) The common object of all these petitions is to get the notifications of October 16 and November 30, 19 5/02/1957 and of 18/04/1957 vacated and this is sought on the following four grounds: (i) The Secretary, R. T. A. has no jurisdiction to alter the timings arbitrarily, capriciously or change the system of rotation so as to prejudice the existing operators. (ii) The changes of times or of rotation of buses are changes in the conditions of the permits, and as the permits in the instant cases were granted by the Road Transport Authority, varying or altering the conditions can be done by the Road Transport Authority alone under Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (iii) Under Section 48-A of the same Act, the S.T.A has got the power to vary the conditions subject to the proviso of no change to be made to the prejudice of the operator without three months notice to him, and no such notice has been given. (iv) The Secretary has acted in opposition to the principles of natural justice by canceling the times issued on 21/06/1956 without notice to the operators that were affected by it. Against this the position taken by the several respondents is: (1) The provisions as to timings fall within Section 48 (o) of the Act and the Rule 134-A (ii) provides for the delegation of such powers to the Secretary who is competent to change the timings. (2) Section 48-A of Motor Vehicles Act relates to the variation of the conditions covered by Section 48(d) of the aforesaid Act and as provisions concerning additional trips consequent on changes in times do not constitute variation of conditions of permits, reliance on the proviso to Section 48-A and the reference to the Rule 208(b) are not relevant. (3) The petitioner is in no way aggrieved because the timings of his buses have not been changed, much less the trips given to his bus. (4) No right of the petitioner has been infringed as he has no right to exclude competition and the orders have been validly passed in the interests of the public.