Telangana High Court
WP/27805/2005 of M.Sreenivasulu, Vs The Secretary, on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.27805 of 2005 Date:28.12.2005 M.Sreenivasulu, s/o: O.M.Ramakrishna, aged 35 years R/o: O.D.No.18/8/2,M.F.Road,Hindupur. -----------Petitioner A N D The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, Anantapur District. -------------Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
W.P.No.27805 of 2005
Date:28.12.2005
M.Sreenivasulu, s/o: O.M.Ramakrishna, aged 35 years R/o: O.D.No.18/8/2,M.F.Road,Hindupur. -----------Petitioner A N D
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, Anantapur District.
-------------Respondent
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.27805 OF 2005
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.02/V.5326 on a town servicewith Permit No.1/1C/05 issued by the respondent herein. He submitted anapplication, dated 14.12.2005 before the respondent seeking permission to releasethe vehicle, on the ground that it needs to be replaced by another. Through hismemo, dated 15-12-2005, the respondent rejected the request and took the view thatthe vehicle can be released, only when it is replaced by another and not otherwise.The petitioner challenges the same.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forTransport.
The very purpose of granting Permit, enabling the owner of the vehicle to operate iton a route, is to ensure that the traveling public are provided with the transportfacility. Once a vehicle is granted such permission, it cannot be permitted to bewithdrawn. The Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder provide forreplacement of vehicle, wherever the permit-holder wants. There is no provision,which enables the permit holder to release the vehicle without replacing it. Such acourse would result in defeating the very purpose of granting the permit. If thevehicle owned by the petitioner at present needs major repairs and he is not able toreplace it with another, he can certainly seek release of the vehicle, paving the wayfor the respondent to grant permit in favour of the owner of another vehicle.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that in case the petitioner insists thathis vehicle be released for major repairs and he is not able to replace it with anothervehicle, the respondent shall accede to such request and he may, in turn, granttransport permit on the same route in favour of the owner of another vehicle, inaccordance with law. The permit of the petitioner, in such an event, shall be dealtwith in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rulesmade there under. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________28-12-2005
Note: Issue C.C. in three days.(B/o)Mdaa