Telangana High Court
WP/27564/2005 of K. Satyanrayanamurthy S/o Late Subbarao Vs The Regional TRasnport Officer, on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27564 of 2005 Date:27.12.2005 K.Satyanarayanamurthy. --------PETITIONER The Regional Transport Officer. ---------RESPONDENTS ORDER: The petitioner is operating his vehicle bearing No.AP.35/T.1611 on a town service with Permit No.3/VZM/81 issued by
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27564 of 2005
Date:27.12.2005
K.Satyanarayanamurthy.
The Regional Transport Officer.
--------PETITIONER
---------RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is operating his vehicle bearing No.AP.35/T.1611 on a townservice with Permit No.3/VZM/81 issued by the respondent herein. Hesubmitted an application, dated 29.10.2005, before the respondent seekingpermission to release the vehicle, on the ground that it needs to be replaced byanother. Through his memo, dated 18.11.2005, the respondent rejected therequest and took the view that the vehicle can be released, only when it isreplaced by another and not otherwise. The petitioner challenges the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned GovernmentPleader for Transport.
The very purpose of granting Permit, enabling the owner of the vehicle tooperate it on a route, is to ensure that the travelling public are provided with thetransport facility. Once a vehicle is granted such permission, it cannot bepermitted to be withdrawn. The Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunderprovide for replacement of vehicle, wherever the permit-holder wants. There isno provision, which enables the permit holder to release the vehicle withoutreplacing it. Such a course would result in defeating the very purpose of granting the permit. If the vehicle owned by the petitioner at present needsmajor repairs and he is not able to replace it with another, he can certainly seekrelease of the vehicle, paving the way for the respondent to grant permit infavour of the owner of another vehicle.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that in case the petitionerinsists that his vehicle be released for major repairs and he is not able toreplace it with another vehicle, the respondent shall accede to such requestand he may, in turn, grant temporary permit on the same route in favour of theowner of another vehicle, in accordance with law. The permit, which remainswith the petitioner shall be liable to be dealt with in accordance with theprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder. There shallbe no order as to costs.
Jsu
_________
27.12.2005