Partly allowed

R v. Subhash Chandra Bose v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2023WA/876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal against a judgment that set aside an order revising permit timings. The Court held the original authority's order was non-speaking and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed; impugned orders are set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration within four weeks.

R v Subhash Chandra Bose Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

h !

<br>

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AIWARAVATI

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

fa PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 876 OF 2023

¶9

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.28645 of 2022 dated 08.08.2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

R V Subhash Chandra Bose. S/o. Late R Venkatesam Chetty Aged about 68 Years 12/122, Javali Street, Palamaneru, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

...Appellant/Respondent No.7

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi ’ Guntur District.

¶14

2 Secretary Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. Rep. by its

¶15

The Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada

¶16

The Joint Transport Commissioner & Secretary, State Transport Authority Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada. .

¶17

Andhra'f^rad^'^^h^^M'^ Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor,

¶18

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Respondents/Respondents 1 to 6

¶19

1. Zameer Ahammed, S/o. Late K.M. Abdul Rehman Aged about 70 years R/o House No. 1521 (old). New No. 1003, Old Post Office Road. Kolar, Kolar District, Karnataka State.

¶20

...Respondents/ Writ Petitioner

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dt.08.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.28645/2p22, pending writ appeal.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI W.B.SRINIVAS, for SRI E.MARUTHI RAJA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶25

Counsel for Respondent No.6: SRI M.SOLOMON RAJU, SC for APSRTC

¶26

Counsel for Respondent No.7: SRI S.ARIFULLAH

¶27

The Court made'the following:

■i'-i

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

W.A. No. 876 OF 2023

¶33

JUDGMENT:/per A. V. Sesha Sai, J)

¶34

Heard Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned counsel, representing Sri E.Maruthi Raja, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for 6th respondent and Sri S.Arifullah, learned counsel for

¶35

the 7* respondent.

¶36

Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.28645 of. 2022 is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

¶37

Respondent No.7 herein instituted the above said Writ Petition, assailing the order passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, State Transport Authority, Vijayawada vide proceedings dated 23.03.2021. On an application submitted by the appellant under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988{for short ‘the Act’), the Joint Transport Commissioner passed the^'order

¶38

¶39

impugned in the Writ Petition, revising the timings of the Stage Carriage Permit No.43/64 valid upto 06.12.2025 in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 03TE 7000 plying on the Inter-State route Tirupathi to Banglore(via) Chittoor, Palamaner, Nangli, Mulabagal' and Kolar. The Writ Petitioner/7th respondent herein questioned the

¶40

aforesaid order on three(3) grounds:-

¶41

i) The impugned order tantamounts to change of routes.

¶42

H) The Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

¶43

iii) The order impugned in the Writ Petition is completely bereft of reasons and passed without considering the objections raised by the Writ Petitioner/ 7* respondent herein.

¶44

The learned Single Judge by way of order dated 08.08.2023 allowed the Writ Petition on two grounds, namely the order passed by the Joint Commissioner is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order and that the application filed by the appellant herein for change of timings would amount to grant of new permit under Section 80(3) of the Act.

¶45

¶46

¶47

It is contended by Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned

¶48

counsel that said findings, recorded by the learned Single Judge, are highly erroneous, contrary to law and also contrary to*the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed therein. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Joint Transport Commissioner assigned valid and convincing reasons in the order dated 23.03.2021 and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are not sustainable and tenable in the eye of law. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that after elaborate consideration of the objections of all the sector operators only, the Joint Transport Commissioner passed the order

¶49

dated 23.03.2021 and the same would be evident from the

¶50

reading of the said order.

¶51

On contrary, Sri S.Arifullah, learned counsel for the ythrespondent contends that the order of the learned

¶52

Single Judge does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Clause 15 of Letter Patent.

¶53

¶54

The information available before this Court discloses that pursuant to the submission of the application by the appellant herein in terms of Section 80(3) of the. Act, the authorities called for objections , from the persons likely to be affected. Perusal of the order dated 23.03.2021 discloses that objections were submitted by as many as 5 sector operators, including the writ petitioner. Copy of the objections. filed before the authorities, by the writ petitioner is filed along with the Writ Appeal as a material paper. The same shows that the 7th respondent/Writ Petitioner submitted elaborate objections to the proposed action.

¶55

Reading of the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated 23.03.2021 makes it clear that except referring to the objections raised by the sector operators, including the Writ Petitioner/7* respondent herein, the Joint Transport Commissioner did not make any endeavour to consider the objections for the proposed action. In the considered opinion of this Court, the entire exercise undertaken by the Joint Transport Commissioner is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law.

¶56

¶57

¶58

. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court,

¶59

the order passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner dated 23.03.2021 is non-speaking order. At the same time it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge also had gone into the contention and recorded the finding that the impugned action tantamounts to grant of new permit under Section 80(3) of the Act.

¶60

In the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge at Paragraph No.43 of the impugned order is not warranted and the learned Single Judge in fact ought to have remitted the matter back to the respondent authorities for consideration of the issues raised in accordance with law.

¶61

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28645 of 2022 and the

¶62

order passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada in

¶63

Rc.No.2721903/Bl/2019 and Rc.No.946736/Bl /2019

¶64

dated 23.03.2021 is set aside. The matter is remanded

¶65

back to the respondent authorities for fresh consideration.

¶66

i ■i

¶67

¶68

The respondent authorities are directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks after giving notice to all the concerned.

¶69

It is needless to observe that the 7th respondent herein is entitled to file his additional objections, if any to the proposed action and it is also open to the appellant to file fresh material, if any, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the completion of the entire exercise, status-quo as bn date of filing of Writ

¶70

Petition shall be maintained. No order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶72

stand closed.

¶73

//TRUE COPY//.

¶74

SD/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTER sA^ECnONOFFICER

¶75

ThP Princioal Secretary Transport. Roads and Buildifigs Department State of

¶76

■ Inrihra P adesh Secretar^^^^ Amaravathi. Guntur District;

¶77

2 Ttle Secretary. State Transport Commissioner Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. 3. The Transport Commissioner. Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada Andhra 4. The Joint Transport Commissioner. State Transport Authority. Andhra

¶78

5. Th?Deputy^Tra^sport^ Regional Transport Authority. Chittoor.

¶79

6. The Managing Director. APSRTC. Vijaya^da, Krishna District.

¶80

7. One CC to Sri E.Maruthi Rga. Advocate [OPUC] 8 One CC to Sri M.Solomon Raju. SC for APSRTC [OPUC] 9’. One CC to Sri S.Arifullah. Advocate [OPUC] 16.Two CCs to GP for Transport. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]t

¶81

11. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/09/2023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.876 of 2023

¶87

of
2 5 SEP 2823
’v>
Current Section

¶88

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

R v. Subhash Chandra Bose v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R v. Subhash Chandra Bose v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sura Gangireddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Saripudi Venkata Krishnaiah at Venkata Krishna Rao Vs the State of Ap

R Marthamma Vs the Forest Section Officer

Shaik Ali Murthuza Vs the Principal Secretary

Dugga Alias Duggi Vijaya Lakshmi Vs the State of Ap

Bevara Satya Harsha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh