T. Penchala Naidu Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles - sanction of route - section 68 (3) of motor vehicles act, 1988 and rules 258 and 258 (2) of andhra pradesh motor vehicles rules - petitioner challenged order of first respondent directing that petitioner not entitled to have permit to operate bus service - initially transport commissioner sanctioned town service route and granted permit to petitioner - first respondent contended that transport commissioner only entitled to sanction route subject to confirmation of same by state government - held, transport commissioner not entitled to sanction route on his own and thus order of first respondent justified. - all india services act, 1951. sections 32(c) (as amended by section 3 of amendment act, 2005] & 10 & general clauses act, 1897, section 6: [g.s. singhvi, cj, dr.g......orderv.v.s. rao, j. 1. the petitioner assails the order of the state transport appellate tribunal (stat) dated 22-2-2002 in r.p. no. 19 of 2000 and the consequential order of the regional transport officer, nellore, the fourth respondent herein, dated 6-5-2002. he also seeks a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to permit him to continue to operate his stage carriage bus bearing no. ap-26-u-5387 under permit no. psp/2/n/2000 on the town service route naidupet bus stand to gurramkonda girijanapalem via swamamukhi bridge.2. the facts are in a very narrow compass. the petitioner is a bus operator. he applied to the regional transport authority (rta), the second respondent herein, seeking a permit on the town service route from naidupet bus stand to gurramkonda girijanapaleni via.....

Judgment:
ORDER

V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. The petitioner assails the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated 22-2-2002 in R.P. No. 19 of 2000 and the consequential order of the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, the fourth respondent herein, dated 6-5-2002. He also seeks a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to permit him to continue to operate his stage carriage bus bearing No. AP-26-U-5387 under permit No. PSP/2/N/2000 on the town service route Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem via Swamamukhi Bridge.

2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is a bus operator. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), the second respondent herein, seeking a permit on the town service route from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapaleni via Swamamukhi Bridge. The same was rejected by the second respondent on 13-12-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the STAT under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act'). The same being A.P. No. 41 of 1998 was allowed by an order dated 8-9-1998 and the matter was remitted to the second respondent for obtaining permission from the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules') as the permit the petitioner wanted for the route extended 8 km beyond the municipal limits. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Transport Commissioner. The said official by proceedings in RC. No. 1038/E3/99, dated 9-9-1999 sanctioned town service route. Therefore, by resolution dated 26-10-1999, the second respondent granted a permit. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), the third respondent herein, approached the STAT by filing a revision petition under Section 90 of the Act. The STAT by the impugned order dated 22-2-2002 set aside the order granting permit by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 21-5-2002, passed interim order directing the respondents to permit the bus on the route until further orders after verifying as to whether the route in question and portion thereof is not served by any service either by APSRTC or any other agency and if the route is not served by any service, the petitioner be permitted to operate the bus. In obedience thereof, the fourth respondent issued proceedings dated 27-6-2002 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to operate the said vehicle on the route Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem for the reason that a portion of the route in question is being served by APSRTC as well as private service. The petitioner, therefore, filed a miscellaneous application being WP MP No.13698 of 2002 seeking clarification of the interim order dated 21-5-2002. Having regard to the proceedings dated 27-6-2002 issued by the fourth respondent declining permission to the petitioner to operate the bus, this Court declined to clarify the order dated 21-5-2002 and, however, directed that the case be heard as an urgent matter.

4. Sri V.Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed before me a rough sketch of the route Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem. He would contend that APSRTC is running two buses from Gudur to Vajravaripalem via Gurramkonda Girijanapalem and one bus from Gudur to Karravallavolu via Gurramkonda and Sagaturu and one bus from Vakadu to Venkatagiri via Gurramkonda Girijanapalem and, therefore, there is an existing route from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem. The order passed by the STAT in the premise that there is no existing approved route is a misdirection in law. He would also urge that when the APSRTC is running a stage carriage bus on the routes covered by a scheme, the scheme would not come in the way of the RTA granting a town service permit. He placed reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in APSRTC v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, : 2001(3)ALD235 (FB).

5. The learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and the learned Government Pleader for Transport opposed the writ petition. Their main plank of defence is that there is no route approved by the Government from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem and, therefore, it is not competent for the Transport Commissioner to sanction town service permit under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules. They also dispute the rough sketch of the route filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. With reference to the same, alternatively, they contend that even if the sketch is taken to be true, there is no bus running on the route from Venkatagiri Cross Roads to Sagaturu Cross Roads because the same is not approved. Therefore, the order passed by the STAT is justified. They also placed reliance on the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner dated 8-9-1999, which shows that there is 12.1 km unserved portion on the route from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem via Swarnamukhi Bridge, Venkatagiri Cross, Punanpalli, Nommalapudi, Manavali Cross, Sagatur Cross and Gurramkonda Cross Roads.

6. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order of the STAT suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record?

7. It is too well settled that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in Certiorari jurisdiction, this Court would be very slow to interfere with the orders of the statutory Tribunal unless the error is so grave and apparent on the face of the record. If the statutory Tribunal placed reliance on two judgments of this Court including one Division Bench judgment, it requires strong reasons to hold that the statutory Tribunal committed error and grave error on the face of the record. Be it noted that STAT allowed the revision petition filed by the APSRTC placing reliance on the two judgments of the Court in APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, : 1999(2)ALD60 , and N. Swarnalatha v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad, : 2001(4)ALD257 (DB). If a statutory Tribunal ignores a binding precedent rendered by this Court or the Supreme Court and passes an order ignoring them, it would certainly give rise to a situation where the order would be vitiated by a grave error apparent on the face of the record. The same cannotbe true when the Tribunal follows the precedents and applies the law laid down by this Court.

8. Before adverting to the two decisions relied on by the STAT, it is necessary to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As noticed, he would urge that the route from Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem is covered by bus service and, therefore, an inference can be drawn that there is an existing route in which event under Rule 258(2)(i) of the Rules, it is competent for the RTA to grant town service permit subject to Rule 258(2) itself. As the town service route extends more than 8 km from the limits of the Municipality, in the first round of litigation, the STAT allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the RTA for getting necessary Sanction from the Transport Commissioner which was accordingly given. Therefore, he would urge that the grant of permit by the second respondent is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the same.

9. 'Route' is defined in Section 2(38) as to mean a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. As per the plan/rough sketch, it is no doubt true that APSRTC is running buses from Vakadu as well as Gudur Bus Stand via Gurramkonda Girijanapalem. But it is not the case of the petitioner that there is any bus being run by the APSRTC between two termini namely, Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem. The mere fact that a bus either by APSRTC or a private agency passes through Gurramkonda Girijanapalem from Naidupet Bus Stand is not crucial. Unless it is shown that a bus terminates at Gurramkonda Girijanapalem and starts from that place and terminates at Naidupet Bus Stand, even if a bus or service starts at Naidupet Bus Stand and terminates at Gurramkonda Cross Road or for that matter from Vakadu or Gudur passing through Gurramkonda Girijanapalem, the same does not lead to a conclusion that there is an approved route between Naidupet Bus Stand to Gurramkonda Girijanapalem in terms of the definition of the route under Section 2(38) of the Act. It is not denied before me that as per Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994), the power to formulate the routes for plying such carriages vests with the State Government. Be it noted, Section 68(1) of the Act deals with transport authorities who exercise and discharge powers to be exercised by the State Transport Authority (STA) or every Regional Transport Authority. Prior to amendment, STA and RTA were competent to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the RTA and Settle all disputes and decide all matters in which difference of opinion arises between two authorities. After amendment, the power to formulate the routes vested absolutely in the Government and, therefore, the STA or RTA or the Transport Commissioner does not have any power to formulate the routes for plying stage carriages.

10. Further, as seen from the languageof Rule 258 of the Rules, it refers to anexisting bus route. It only means a busroute formulated by the Government inaccordance with Section 68(3)(ca) of theAct. The RTA can fix stages of busroutes except town service routes insofaras the town service is concerned. As perClause (i) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 258 of the Rules, the RTA shall determine a town service route subject to the conditions laid down thereunder. Reading Section 68(3)(ca) and Rule 258 together, it is not possible to hold that RTA can determine the town service route in the absence of a bus route formulated by the Government. Under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act, specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is required to be obtained only when the RTA formulates a town service route which extends more than 8 km beyond the municipal limits. Again, to repeat, RTA can only determine the town service route only when there is a bus route between the two specific termini and not otherwise. To the same effect are the two decisions of this Court referred to hereinabove. It is only necessary to refer to the following observations from the Division Bench judgment in N. Swarnalatha v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyd. (supra).

. ........In fact, a reading of the provisionsreferred to above would clearly indicate that restrictions which are placed under the Act for grant of permits are reasonable and do not offend Article 19(1)(g). If the route is not formulated, no application would lie. Therefore, the appropriate Government is vested with the power to formulate the route but that does not mean that route can be formulated by the operators themselves and seek an application that interpretation cannot be given to the said section. It is well settled rule that the provision has to be interpreted keeping in view the object sought to be achieved Therefore, the interpretation has to be in consonance with the preamble or object of the Act which should aim at advancing the cause and not to curtail the cause.

11. It was again held:........the State Government is the appropriate Government to formulate the routes and in case the town service route is formulated beyond eight kilometers, the permission of the Transport Commissioner is necessary. Of course, the rule empowers the Road Transport Authority to determine the town service route and reading of Clause (ca) would make one to understand that the Road Transport Authority is empowered to declare the town service route which goes against the provisions of Clause (ca) of Sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the M.V. Act. The Rule making power is only a subordinate legislation and it gives way to the principal provision which only empowers the Government to formulate the route; in that regard it has to be considered that Road Transport Authority is empowered to determine the town service route subject to formation of route by the State Government. If we read so harmoniously there would not be any inconsistency between the main Section and the Rule 258.

12. In the result, for the above reasons,the writ petition fails and is accordinglydismissed. There shall be no order as tocosts.