K RAMACHANDRA NAIDU Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor had granted on October 4, 1960 two state carriage permits on the inter-State route Tirupati to Arkonam to two out of thirty-three applicants. That order was finally set aside by the State Government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction on Nov. I6. 1964 with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the matter afresh. Thereafter. The R. T A. Chittoor had, by its order dated Nov. 25. 1966, granted the permits to P. Venku Reddy and K. Ramachandra Naidu respondents 2 and 3 in W. P. No. 5291 of 1978. Aggrieved by that order the seven unsuccessful applicants preferred appeals before the appellate authority in April 1966, under Rule 189 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter called "the Rules"). During the pendency of those appeals the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) was amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment Act ) (Act 56 of 1969) whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal manned by a Judicial Officer not less than the rank of a District Judge, has been constituted under sub-sec. (2) of S. 64 of the Act to hear and dispose of the appeals against the grant or refusal of the stage carriage permits. By virtue of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of S. 64 of the Act every appeal pending at the commencement of the Amendment Act 56 of 1969 shall be proceeded with and disposed of as if that Act has not been passed Rules 188 to 193 of the Rules were repealed and in their place a new Rule 188 was inserted under G. O. Ms. No. 614 dated 31-3-1971. To meet the new situation that had arisen, the Government framed new R. 189 under G. O. Ms. No. 1189 dated Aug 25, 1972 where under the Transport Commissioner had been constituted as the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeals then pending. The question now raised is which of the authorities should hear the 7 appeals preferred before the appellate authority in April, 1966. under the then Rule 189. When the appeals were sought to be disposed of by the Transport Commissioner, who is the appellate authority constituted under the present Rule 189. which came into force on 25-8-1972. the present writ petitions have been filed for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the Transport Commissioner to forbear from hearing! the appeals an the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the same, our learned brother Madhava reddy. J before wham the writ petitions came up for hearing in the first instance, thought that there is conflict between the decision of a Division Bench in K. Ramachandra Naidu v. Govt. at A. P. (AIR 1976 Andh Pra 203) and that of another Division Bench in W. Ps. Nos. 1982 and 2397 of 1971, although both these judgments are ad idem on the point that the present State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not competent to hear the appeals and, therefore, referred the eases to a Bench which, in its turn, referred the same to the Full Bench in order to resolve the conflict. That is how these cases have come up before us.

(2.) The sum and substance of the contention of Mr. J. Suryanarayana learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. No. 5291 of 1978 is that the authority which is competent to hear the appeals is the appellate authority consisting of the Transport Commissioner as Chairman and two other members, who shall also be the members of the State Transport Authority, as per Rule 189 as it stood in April, 1966 when the appeals were preferred and that the appellate authority consisting of the Transport Commissioner alone under new Rule 189 has no jurisdiction and is not competent to proceed with and dispose of the appeals pending on or prior to competent to proceed with and dispose of the appeals pending on or prior to 1-4-1971. This plea of Mr. G. Suryanarayana is controverted by the learned Government pleader and by Mr. R Venugopala Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent contending inter alia that the present appellate authority consisting of the transport Commissioner is the only competent authority to hear the appeals in question, that there is only change of forum hut not in the authority and that it is open to the Government to change the forum keeping intact the right of appeal to the appellants.

(3.) The question therefore, that falls for decision is whether it is for the appellate authority consisting of the Transport Commissioner as Chairman and two members of the S.T.A. as per Rule 189 as it stood in April 1966 when the appeals were preferred, or the appellate authority consisting of the Transport Commissioner alone as required by the present Rule 189 that is competent to hear and dispose of the 7 appeals preferred by the unsuccessful applications against the orders of the R.T.A. chittoor granting two inter-State stage carriage permits on 25-11-1966.