WP/28504/1997 of B.C.Venkat Reddy, Vs Regional Transport Officer, on 28 December 2006

ORDER:

The petitioner is a stage carriage permit holder on the townservice route – Modampalle to Chodur. It is stated that he was grantedvariation of the existing permit from Chodur to Jammalamadugu viaKakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle etc. While so, the road in betweenKakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle, Seshareddypalle andJammalamadugu was badly damaged and became not motorable. Inthe circumstances, the petitioner made an application before the 1[st]respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa, for temporarydeviation so as to reach Jammalamadugu via Salivendla till the roadbetween Kakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle is repaired. The 1[st]respondent by order dated 27-07-1992 rejected the saidapplication. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appealbeing A.P.436/1992 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,Hyderabad, under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short“the Act”). The said appeal was allowed by order dated 27-01-1994. While setting aside the order of the 1[st] respondent, the Tribunal hadpermitted deviation of route as sought by the petitioner till the culvertsare repaired subject to the condition that the petitioner should not pickup or set down passengers on the deviated route.

2. Admittedly, the said order, which remained unchallenged, hasbecome final. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was issuedtemporary permits from time to time to ply his vehicle on the deviatedroute up to 29-02-1997. Alleging that thereafter, the 1[st] respondentstopped issuing further temporary permits without any justifiablereason, the petitioner filed W.P.No.24439 of 1997. The said writpetition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 25-09-1997 withdirections as under:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that therespondent shall issue permit to the petitioner in accordancewith the order passed by the State Transport AppellateAuthority in A.P.No.436/92 dated 27-01-1994 after ensuringthat the road is still under repair and the bus cannot beoperated on the said route.”

It is alleged that in spite of the said order, no permit was issued thoughthe petitioner made repeated requests and reminders to the 1[st]respondent. Hence, this writ petition seeking a declaration that theaction of the 1[st] respondent in not permitting the petitioner to operatehis bus on the deviated town service route from Modampalle toJammalamadugu via Chodur and Salivendla is arbitrary and illegal.

3. The 1[st] respondent-Regional Transport Officer filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was initially operating his bus as atown service on the route Modampalle to Chodur. Subsequently, hewas granted temporary variation of existing permit from Chodur toJammalamadugu via Kakirenipalle, Seshareddypalle etc., by theRegional Transport Authority, Kadapa, for four months. Pursuantthereto, a temporary permit, valid from 1.10.1989 to 31.10.1990, wasissued under Rule 258(2) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (forshort “the Rules”). Again the petitioner applied for temporary permit ondeviated route to ply his vehicle on the main road from Chodur toJammalamadugu on the ground that two culverts were damaged onthe existing route. The said request was not accepted as the mainroute from Proddutur to Jammalamadugu was notified for exclusiveoperation of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and there was nopossibility to permit private operators. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport AppellateTribunal, which was allowed. Thereafter, on 25-1-1995 the petitionerhad applied for pucca variation to ply his vehicle from Chodur toJammalamadugu via Kakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle. The samewas rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa, in the

meeting held on 1.2.1997. Hence, the petitioner’s application fortemporary permit on the deviated route i.e., Modampalle toJammalamadugu via Salivendula was not considered. Since thepetitioner’s request for pucca variation was already rejected, theimpugned action of the 1[st] respondent was in accordance with law andthe interference by this Court is not warranted.

4. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, which gotimpleaded as respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit opposing therelief sought in the writ petition on the ground that the deviated route inwhich the petitioner is operating his bus overlaps three notified routes. It is also pleaded that there is no possibility of laying the road betweenKakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle, since the road to a length of about4 kms passes through private fields.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail.

6. It is true that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunaldated 27-01-1994 has become final. As a matter of fact, this Courtwhile disposing of W.P.No.24439 of 1997 had reiterated that therespondent is bound to issue permit to the petitioner in accordancewith the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 27-01-1994. However, it cannot be held that the order of the Tribunal dated27-01-1994 entitles the petitioner to ply the vehicle on the deviatedroute i.e., from Chodur to Jammalamadugu via Salivendla for ever.

7. As can be seen from the counter-affidavit of the 1[st] respondent,the petitioner is holding a pucca stage carriage permit on the townservice route only from Modampalle to Chodur. The extension fromChodur to Jammalamadugu via Kakirenipalle and Seshareddypallewas granted by way of temporary variation. While operating thevehicle on the said route, the petitioner sought for temporary deviationvia Salivendla on the ground that the road between Kakirenipalle andSeshareddypalle was damaged. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal the petitioner was granted temporary permits toply the vehicle via Salivendla. However, the 1[st] respondent’s counter-affidavit shows that subsequently the petitioner sought for pucca stagecarriage permit by extending the existing permit from Chodur toJammalamadugu via Kakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle, but thesame was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Kadapa. Acopy of the proceeding of the meeting of the Regional TransportAuthority, Kadapa, dated 1.2.1997 has been placed before this Courtwhich makes it clear that the petitioner’s request for pucca permit wasrejected.

8. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the saidorder has become final, since the petitioner has not chosen tochallenge before the appellate Tribunal or any other Forum.

9. Nothing has been placed before this Court to contradict theversion of the respondents. By virtue of the decision of the RegionalTransport Authority dated 1.2.1997, the petitioner is not entitled tooperate his vehicle on the extended route from Chodur toJmmalamadugu via Kakirenipalle. In the circumstances, as rightlycontended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the question ofpermitting the petitioner to ply the vehicle on the deviated route viaSalivendla does not arise, since such deviation was sought on theground that the route between Kakirenipalle and Jammalamaduguwas not motorable.

10. It is also relevant to note that till today the road betweenKakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle could not be repaired and thelearned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent-Corporation,submitted that there is no possibility of laying the road betweenKakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle in the near future, since the saidland belongs to private parties. In the circumstances, the continuationof the petitioner on the deviated route under the guise of the order ofthe Appellate Tribunal is nothing but circumventing the statutory

provisions. It is to be noted that even a temporary permit grantedunder Section 87 of the Act shall be effective for a limited period, whichshall not exceed four months. Therefore, grant of temporary permitsone after another for unlimited period is nothing but circumventing thestatutory provisions, which has been highly deprecated by this Court inP.S. Saleema Bee v. Secretary State Transport Authority, A.P.,Hyderabad and others[[1]]

11. Even the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 27.1.1994 uponwhich the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon,was only as a stop gap arrangement, having regard to the obstructionon the road in respect of which the petitioner was granted temporaryvariation. My be that the said order dated 27.1.1994 has become final,but in view of the subsequent order dated 1.2.1997 passed by theRegional Transport Authority, Kadapa, rejecting the request of thepetitioner for pucca permit on the route from Chodur toJammalamadugu via Kakirenipalle and Seshareddypalle, the order ofthe Tribunal has become in operative. Hence, the petitioner cannot begranted any relief in this writ petition on the basis of the said order ofthe Tribunal.

12. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

13. However, it is made clear that this shall not preclude thepetitioner to seek pucca stage carriage permit to ply as town service byextension/variation of the existing permit from Chodur toJammalamadugu via Salivendla. If any such application is made, thesame shall be considered by the 1[st] respondent and appropriateorders be passed in accordance with law. No costs.

__________________

JUSTICE G. ROHINI.