Allowed

Apsrtc Mushirabad Hyd v. S.T.A.T HYDAND3 Ors.

Telangana HC14 Jun 2004WP/9426/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judgment addresses a writ petition challenging a permit grant by the Regional Transport Authority without prior Transport Commissioner approval. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's position that such permits are ultra vires without Commissioner permission.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17-08-1998 was set aside; respondents at liberty to approach Transport Commissioner; writ petition allowed; no order as to costs; Rule nisi made absolute.

Apsrtc Mushirabad Hyd Vs S.T.A.T HYDAND3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO : 9426 of 1999

¶5

Between:

¶6

A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, rep.by its Presiding Officer. 2. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, rep.by its Secretary. 3. Sri S.M.Gulzar, W/o S.M.Kaleem, 1/268, R.S.Road, Kadiri, Anantapur dist. 4. Sri Y.Raja Reddy, S/o Y.Narsi Reddy, D.No.1/132, Near: Clock Tower, Kadiri, Anantapur district.

¶10

.....RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 17-08-1998 in R.P.No.60/97 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, in upholding the order dated 13-5-97 and 19-5-97 made in R.No.12822/A2/96 by the Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal, without jurisdiction.

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr.V.V.P.Rao, Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Government Pleader for Transport

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr.E.Maruthi Raja, Advocate

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: None appeared.

¶16

The Court made the following Order:

¶17

Heard the learned counsel Mr. E.Maruthi Raja appearing for the 3^rd respondent. None represents the 4^th respondent though notice was served.

¶18

The applications made by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents for grant of pucca stage carriage permit one each to ply on the town service route from Kadiri Sericulture Market to Gollapalli Cross Via: Market Yard, Industrial Estate, Kummaravandlapalli, Thanda, Gangannagaripalli, Kamathampalli, Maddivarigonda Cross, Dornala and Katarupalli cross, were considered by the 2^nd respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Ananthapur, and issued proceedings vide Rc.No.12622/A2/96, dated 13-05-1997 and

¶19

19-05-1997 to grant stage carriage permits in their favour on the above route subject to receipt of approval from the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as the distance beyond municipal limits is more than 8 kms, against which, the petitioner preferred revision in R.P.No.60 of 1997 before the 1^st respondent-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

¶20

The learned counsel on either side fairly concede that as per the law declared by the Apex Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. STATE

¶21

TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL^[1] , only after obtaining prior permission from the Transport Commissioner, the 2^nd respondentRegional Transport Authority can grant permission sought by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶22

Having regard to the aforesaid decision, the issuance of pucca stage carriage permits subject to receipt of approval from the State Transport Commissioner is contrary to law and the same cannot be sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

¶23

17-08-1998 passed by the 1^st respondent is liable to be set aside and the 3^rd and 4^th respondents are at liberty to approach the State Transport Commissioner seeking permission for grant of stage carriage permit. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶24

The Rule nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶25

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this, Monday, the fourteenth day of June, Two thousand and four.

¶26

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. // TRUE COPY //

¶27

SECTION OFFICER.

¶28

¶29

1. The Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad.

¶30

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

¶31

Anantapur.

¶32

3. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Transport, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

¶33

4. Two C.D.Copies.

¶34

kvni

¶35

[1] AIR 1998 SC 2621

Apsrtc Mushirabad Hyd v. S.T.A.T HYDAND3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc Mushirabad Hyd v. S.T.A.T HYDAND3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kilari Koteswaramma, Vs The Panchayat Secretary

Vunnam Susmitha Vs The Jawahar Lal Nehur Technolgoical

National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Narayanappa Vs the Rto Hindupur and Another

The Md. Apsrtc. Msrd. Hyd Vs the Po. Stat. Ap. Hyd and 2 Ors.

B.Karunakar Raju Mahaboobnagar Vs Convener EDCET-2003 Ou Hyd and Another