Dismissed

The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Guntur v. The STate Transport Appellate Tribunal,Manoranjan complex

Telangana HC11 Sept 2014WP/32306/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the grant of pucca stage carriage permits to third respondents. Upholding the Transport Appellate Authority orders, it held that "holders of stage carriage permits" includes future applicants with overlapping routes within permissible limits exempted by Government Orders. The orders were not affected by the presence of existing operators.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions are dismissed; no order as to costs.

The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Guntur Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.32300 and 32306 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order in view of common question of law involved in them.

¶5

2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Transport for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 in both the Writ Petitions.

¶6

3. W.P.No.32300 of 2010 is filed challenging the order, dated 13.09.2010, made in A.P.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent by setting aside the order, dated 14.10.2009 in item No.16 in R.No.2797/B4/2008 of the second respondent and directing issuance of pucca permit to the third respondent on the route Guntur (RTC Bus Stand) to SVN Colony. Similarly, W.P.No.32306 of 2010 is filed challenging the order, dated 13.09.2010, made in A.P.No.29 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent by setting aside the order, dated 14.10.2009 in item No.20 in R.No.2808/B4/2008 of the second respondent and directing issuance of pucca permit to the third respondent on the route Guntur (RTC Bus Stand) to SVN Colony.

¶7

4. The third respondent in both the Writ Petitions applied to the second respondent for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply their vehicles on the existing route i.e., Guntur (RTC Bus Stand) to SVN Colony, via old Bus Stand, Municipal Market, AC College, Over Bridge, Taluka Office, B.Ed., College, Harihara Mahal, Koritipadu, DN Murthy Bungalow, JKC College and Gujjanagundla. They were considered and rejected by the second respondent in their meeting held on 14.10.2009. The APSRTC, represented by the Regional Manager, Guntur, expressed their inability to run the town service route in Guntur town. The second respondent noted that the overlapping portions in the route are within the

¶8

permissible limits. The applications of the third respondent were rejected on the ground that the route passes through the Arundelpet over Bridge and the portion from Market Centre to Shanker Vilas Centre is crowded with heavy traffic as there are number of educational institutions, shopping complexes and markets on that route and accordingly, the second respondent felt that there is no need to permit the new entrants. It was also observed that grant of permits to the new entrants may result in unhealthy competition among the bus operators. Challenging the same, the third respondent in both the Writ Petitions preferred A.P.No.31 of 2009 and A.P.No.29 of 2009 respectively before the first respondent.

¶9

5. The first respondent noted the exceptions mentioned in the Scheme under 3 Government Orders viz., G.O.Ms.No. 333, dated 29.06.1990, G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 28.06.1990 and

¶10

G.O.Ms.No.936, dated 02.11.1987. The first respondent observed that the applicants are future permit holders seeking permit or sanction in their favour and they are not existing operators or holding existing stage carriage permits. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3700 to 3712 of 2001 holding that the stage carriage permits include future stage carriage permit holders also, the first respondent allowed the appeals by his orders dated 13.09.2010. Though the said appeals were concerned with 3 Government Orders, now the present Writ Petitions are filed as against the grant of pucca stage carriage permit as per the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 29.06.1990, G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 28.06.1990 and G.O.Ms.No.936, dated 02.11.1987. The exceptions mentioned in the said scheme are as follows.

¶11

“ G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 29.06.1990:

¶12

Note: This scheme shall not affect:

¶13

(1) the State Transport Undertakings;

¶14

(2) the holders of existing stage carriage permits in respect of town services;

¶15

(3) the holders of the future stage carriage permits in respect of town services having overlapping of not more than 8 kms. on the notified route;

¶16

(4) the holders of existing stage carriage permits on the inter-State routes overlapping the notified route; and

¶17

(5) the services operated by the Devasthanams.

¶18

G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 28.06.1990:

¶19

Note: This scheme shall not affect:

¶20

(1) the State Transport Undertakings; (2) the holders of stage carriage permits for a distance not exceeding 5 kms. on the notified routes; (3) the existing town services operating on the notified route; (4) the existing services operating on the Inter-State routes incorporated in the concluded Inter-State agreements U/s. 63 (3B) of M.V. Act, 1939; and

¶21

(5) the services operated by the Devasthanams.

¶22

G.O.Ms.No.936, dated 02.11.1987:

¶23

Note: This scheme shall not affect:

¶24

(1) the State Transport Undertakings; (2) the holders of existing stage carriage permits in respect of town services;

¶25

(3) the holders of the future stage carriage permits in respect of interState routes overlapping the notified route; and

¶26

(4) the holders of stage permits in respect of such route or routes overlapping not more than 8 kms. on the notified route; and

¶27

(5) the services operated by the Devasthanams.”

¶28

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the holders of future stage carriage permits should be specifically exempted from the operation of the scheme, and in the absence of such exemption in clear terms, the third respondent in both the Writ Petitions are not entitled for pucca stage carriage permits. He drew the attention of this Court to the observations in para 13 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in APSRTC V. Regional Transport Authorit y^[1] and submitted that the exceptions apply only to those who are already operating the services and not to future applicants like the third respondent.

¶29

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that in the same para itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶30

considered the words “the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression “holders of stage carriage permits” has a wider connotation and the future applicants can be said to be holders of permits and thus eligible for grant of permits. He submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petitions.

¶31

8. The learned counsel for the third respondent also relied on an order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7714 of 1992 dated 17.09.1992 which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1325 of 1992 dated 27.02.1997. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the learned single Judge, by taking the ratio of another order in W.P.No.10485 of 1991 and batch dated 14.08.1991 wherein it was held that the holders of stage carriage permits also includes stage carriage permits granted after the notification of the approved scheme, held that the holders of stage carriage permits also include stage carriage permits granted after the notification of the approved scheme and the said view of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. In view of the same, the absence of the words “future” in Exception No.2 in G.O.Ms.No.313, dated 28.06.1990, and Exception No.4 in G.O.Ms.No.936, dated 02.11.1987, does not make any difference and it applies to the holders of future stage carriage permits also. Admittedly, in the instant case, the overlapping distance is within the distance mentioned in the said GOs.

¶32

9. This Court had an occasion to consider the case of existing town services operators, whose applications were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur and were granted by the Transport Appellate Authority. When it was challenged by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur in W.P.No.31254 of 2010 and batch, this Court accepted the plea of the petitioners therein and relying on the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Transport Authority’s case (1

¶33

supra) held that exception applies only in case of existing town services operators and distance of overlapping is irrelevant under the said category. But, the instant case is different from the above batch of cases and here the applicant comes under the holder of future stage carriage permit and the overlapping distance is within the permissible limits. The first respondent rightly noticed the ratio laid down in the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the orders of the first respondent dated 13.09.2010 in A.P.No.31 of 2009 and A.P.No.29 of 2009 suffer from any error of jurisdiction or wrong application of law.

¶34

10. In the circumstances, these Writ Petitions fail and accordingly they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

_______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 12.09.2014 TJMR

¶36

[1] 2005 (4) ALD 1 (SC) = (2005) 4 SCC 391

The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Guntur v. The STate Transport Appellate Tribunal,Manoranjan complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Guntur v. The STate Transport Appellate Tribunal,Manoranjan complex

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

Patnala Appa Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Bendala Hari Prasad, S/o Late Balram Murthy Vs The Divisional Forest Officer

Yejju Ramakrishna Vittal AAlias Rambabu Vs The Special Officer Cum Commissioner, Bhadrachalam

Masha College of Education, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. Sai Eswara Mining Company Vs The Government of India

Kaki Govinda Reddy, Vs Election Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge