REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.                          OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.17119-21 of 2005)

A.P.S.R.T.C.    …..Appellant

Vs.

Reg. Transport Authority,     …..Respondents Ananthapur & Anr.

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division bench of

1

the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court  allowing the  Writ  Appeals  filed by  the

respondent No.2.  Three Writ Appeals were disposed of by a common order.

All the three Writ Appeals were filed by the respondent No.2.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Challenge in these Writ Appeals was to the order passed by learned

Single Judge on 1st December, 2004 in W.P.No.3836  of 2004  and  batch.

Learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of the

State Transport  Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘STAT’)

passed in A.P.No.424 of 2003  dated 10-2-2004  granting one pucca stage

permit  on  the  town  service  route  Hindupur  Municipal  bus  Stand  to

Kothapalli via Mothukapalli, Seva Mandir, Kodigapalli, Parigi, Dharmapur,

Seerepalli and Mudireddipalli in favour of the respondent no.2 herein. After

setting aside the said order, learned single Judge remitted back the appeal to

the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal. Facts in brief, as

have been  stated,  are  that  respondent  no.2  applied  for  two pucca  stage

carriage permits  on town service route Hindupur  Municipal bus  Stand  to

Kothapalli via Mothukapalli, Seva Mandir, Kodigapalli, Parigi, Dharmapur,

2

Seerepalli and Mudireddipalli to perform 12 single trips each per day with

night  halts  at  Hindupur  Municipal  Bus  Stand  and  Kothapalli.  The

application  was  opposed  and  by  proceedings  of  the  Regional  Transport

Authority(hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘RTA’),  Anantapur,  dated  June,

2003,  the application was rejected on the ground that  the prcposed town

service route is a new route and Government alone has to formulate the route

for applying stage carriage permits under the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca)

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act”) and permission of the

Transport  Commissioner  had  not  been  obtained  by  the  respondent  no.2

under Rule 258 (2)(ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short “the

Rules”) for the proposed route. After rejection of the application, respondent

no.2 preferred an appeal before the STAT which on 10th Febnruary, 2004

allowed the appeal. The appellate Tribunal took notice of the fact that one N.

Yunus  Khan  had  applied  for  commissioner  in  individual  cases  since

permission had already been granted for the route in question. Not only that,

respondent  no.2  had  in  fact  on  29  May,  2002  approached  the  State

Transport  Authority,  Andhra  Pradesh  for  requisite permission  under  rule

258(2)(ii)  of the Rules for operating on the town service route-Hindupur

3

Municipal  Bus  Stand  to  Kothapalli  via  Mothukupally,  Seva  Mandir,

Kodigipalli, Parigi, Dharmapura, Seerapalli, Mudireddipalli. With reference

to the said application, by proceedings dated 30 May, 2002, the Transport

Commissioner informed the appellant that since the said route is an existing

route, the respondent no.2 has to approach the Regional Transport Officer,

Anantapur  for further relief. Accordingly, the respondent  no.2 had moved

the  Regional  Transport  Authority,  Anantapur,  which,  by  its  proceedings

dated 7 June, 2003, rejected the application on the ground that the proposed

town service route was a new route and not an old route and permission of

the Transport Commissioner was required. Only Government can formulate

the said route and reference was made by the Regional Transport Authority

to  the  provisions  of  Section  68(3)(ca)  of  the  Act.  Sub-clause  (ca)  was

inserted  in  sub-Section  (3)  of  Section  68  only  with  effect  from  14

November,  1994  by  Act  No.54  of  1994  and  this  cannot  have  any

retrospective effect. Only Rule 258(2) (ii) of the Rules was applicable since

N.  Yunus  Khan  had  applied  for  the  route  in  question  in  1990  and  was

granted the permit to operate on the said route in 1992.   

4

Writ appeal was allowed primarily on the ground that the route was

an existing route as on the date when sub Section (ca) of sub section 3 of

Section 68 of the Act was brought on the statute book.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the

High Court in the Writ Appeals primarily came to the conclusion that the

route in question was an existing one.  The High Court’s conclusion was that

Rule 258  (2)  (ii) of the Rules was  applicable since N. Yunus  Khan  had

applied for the route in question in 1990  and  was  granted  the permit  to

operate in the said route in 1992.  It is submitted that the High Court lost

sight of the fact that the RTA inter alia observed as follows:

“On verification of record of this office it is revealed that the Transport Commissioner, A.P. in proceedings R. No. 25368/E4/92 dated 24.7.1992 granted permission under Rule 258(2)(ii)  of APMV Rules  1989  for  variation  of existing town service route Nimkampalli to Boreddypalli as Nimkampalli to Kothapalli belonging to Sri N. Yunus Khan of Hindupur.”

5. The STAT observed that the report of the MVI was not correct.

The basis indicated is apparently not correct.  STAT had merely assumed

5

that the present respondent no.2 had sought permit on the route operated by

Shri  Siraj,  it  being  an  existing  route  he  was  likely  to  get  the  permit.

Similarly  N.  Yunus  Khan  was  granted  permit  on  the  route  Hindupur

Municipal  Bus  stand  to  Kodigepalli  having  route  length  of  17.2.  k.m.

Therefore the present respondent No.2 can be granted permit.

6. Learned Single judge found that the factual position was not kept

in view and had not been properly analysed and, therefore, the matter was

remanded to STAT.  It was submitted that the learned Single Judge noted

that there was no dispute of the fact that the route applied for in the cases is

not the one covered under Section 68(3) (ca) of the Act.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that in view

of the factual scenario and the analysis made, no interference is called for.

8. We find  that  the  conclusions  of  the  Division Bench  are  quite

abrupt.   As a matter of fact, keeping in view the factual position, learned

Single Judge has remanded the matter for a fresh consideration to the STAT.

6

That being so the Division Bench ought not to have interfered in the matter.

That  being the position, we set aside the impugned judgment of the high

Court  and  restore that  of learned Single Judge.  The order  of remand  as

passed by learned Single Judge stands affirmed.

9. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extend.

……………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)  

……………………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi: February 09, 2009

7