DIVISIONAL MANAGER ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KHAMMAM Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Transport Undertaking is the petitioner who assails the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dt 8-1-1996 passed in A.S. No.650/93 according a permit to the 3rd respondent in respect of the alleged town service route between Kothagudem P.O. and Kotha Palvancha. The facts relevant for the determination of the issue, briefly, are as under: The 3rd respondent filed an application for pucca permit for the town service route referred to above, before the R.T.A., Khammam. The facts established from the record of the case are that the route in question is of a total length of 12.5 kms., of which 2 kms., is within the Municipal limits and 10.5 kms., beyond the Municipal limits, The R.T.A. having declined to grant permit, the 3rd respondent approached the R-1 Tribunal, which passed the impugned order granting permit. Hence the State Transport Undertaking is before this Court.

(2.) Sri Haranath learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the permitgranted by the Tribunal, impugned in this writ petition, is in respect of route which overlaps the notified route which is covered by G.O.No. 1006 dt. 2-11-87 and is thus contrary to the said notified route and in the circumstances the permission of the Tribunal is invalid. The second submission made by the learned Counsel is that according to the statutory environment covered by Rule 258 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') the intending operator has to make an application to the concerned Transport Commissioner wherever the length of the route extends beyond 8 Km., from the Municipal limits and since that is the undisputed factual position in the matter on hand, the 3rd respondent could not have straightaway approached the concerned R.T.A. bypassing the statutory requirement of first approaching the Transport Commissioner, obtaining his permission and thereupon approaching the R.T.A. for permit. In the circumstances, learned Counsel submits, the R.T.A. has rightly declined to accord the permit and the Tribunal in subversion and violation of the statutory regime passed the impugned orders which are ultra vires. Rule 258, to the extent relevant to the case on hand, reads as under : "258. Fixation of stages for stage carriages.: (1) In the case of stage carriages, the Regional Transport Authority shall, after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix stages on all bus routes except where town services are plying. The maximum distance of each stage shall not ordinarily exceed 6.4 Kilometres. When stages are so fixed, fares shall be collected according to stages. (2) The Regional Transport Authority shall, subject to the following restrictions, determine which are town service routes: (ii) No route of town service shall extend more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts, provided that this restriction shall not apply to any town service routes, which were in existence on the date of coming of these rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is obtained. It is ipsissima verba to the provision occurring in Rule 282 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964.

(3.) In A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal considering the saidstatutory phraseology(1964 Rules) the Supreme Court held-