AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
Writ Petition Nos. 18087/97, 18098/97, 18116/97 and 18162/97 are filed by the APSRTC against the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 31-5-1996 directing the Secretary, RTA to issue permits to the appellants therein on the routes applied for subject to permission of the Transport Commissioner, within four months from the date of such permission. The Writ Petition No. 32055/98 was filed by one Ch. Venkatratnam, who is the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition No. 18098/97 challenging the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner, dated 2-9-1998 in RNo. 11645/E/397 rejecting the grant of permission under Rule 258(2)(ii) of APMV Rules. It is his case that he and some other persons filed applications for grant of pucca stage carriage permits. He also filed an application for temporary permits. However, by virtue of the interim directions of this Court, the petitioner was directed to be granted temporary permits pending disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, he was granted three temporary permits. Since the authorities are interfering with the operation of the bus, the petitioner filed WP No.22255/97 and this Court passed an order directing the Transport Commissioner to consider and dispose of the matter under Rule 258 of APMV Rules. Thereafter, the Secretary, RTA Kakinada, sent proposals to the Transport commissioner for according permission and finally the permission was refused by an order dated 2-9-1998. The said order is assailed in this writ petition.
Before dealing with the aforesaid batch of three cases, it is necessary to refer to certain facts leading to filing of this writ petition and other writ petitions. Four applications were filed seeking grant of stage carriage permit on the route GB Stand to Chinakondepndi via Katheru, Muggalla etc. The applications were rejected by the RTA on the ground that the route on which the permit was sought for was overlapping the notified scheme published in G.O. Ms. No.604/1978, 644/1978 and 291/1976. Aggrieved by the rejection of the applications by the RTA the applicants filed four appeals namely AP Nos.285/ 1995, 6/1996, 5/1996, and 49/1996 before the Slate Transport Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the matter allowed the appeals setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and directed the authorities to issue permit to the applicants subject to the permission of the Transport Commissioner within four months from the date of such permission. Four writ petitions have been filed by the APSRTC challenging the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in four appeals referred to above. While the matters are pending before this Court, the Transport Commissioner passed an order dated 2-9-1998 rejecting the permission on the following grounds :
"(i) That the route GB Stand to Chinakondapudi (via) Seethampeta was extending more than 8 kms. beyond the limits of the Municipality,
(ii) That there were schemes covering the route with a overlapping of 22.6 kms. out of total distance 28.1 kms.
(iii) That the route cannot be classified as a town service route under Rule 258(2Xii) of APMV Rules. He was also of the opinion that the route was well served of the bus as reported by the Regional Transport Authority.
It is the contention of the petitioner that when once the State Transport Appellate Authority granted permits to the applicants including the petitioner herein by virtue of the orders passed in the Appeals, they are binding on the Transport Commissioner and it is not open for the Commissioner to ait over the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and then reject the same. It is also contended that the law on the date of the consideration would hold the field and the grant having been made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 31-5-1996 and 14-5-1997, the same cannot be interfered with by the application of the change in law.
The APSRTC filed Counter stating that the order passed by the Transport Commissioner is well within the parameters of the law an the route in question was overlapping over the notified routes beyond the permissible limits. It was also stated that it was not open for the applicant to convert mofussil route into town service route.
Before dealing with the binding effect of the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141, 1 would like to deal with the first contention whether the Transport Commissioner is justified in refusing to treat the route as a town service route.
The learned Govt. Pleader submits that Ihe issue relating to grant of permission under Ruie 258(2)(ii) was considered by the Supreme Court in a recent case in APSRTC v. Stale Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (4) Scale 445. He further submits that the under similar circumstances, the learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the APSRTC, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court, held that the Regional Transport Authority before granting a permission has to determine whether the route applied and which is covered by scheme notified under an Act is a town service route or not. In the case decided by the Supreme Court, the original authority rejected the application for grant of permit on the ground that the overlapping exceeded 8 kms. On appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, held that it is a town service route and accordingly allowed the appeal and granted permission to the applicants on condition that the Transport Commissioner granted permission as contemplated under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the APMV Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, APSRTC carried the matter in writ petition. The contention of the APSRTC that the permission of the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) was a condition precedent for filing application for a route permit when there was a scheme governing the route was rejected. The High Court also held that the power of the Transport Commissioner was unlimited. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed against which the matter was carried before the Supreme Court on which the Government as well as the APSRTC is laying considerable stress.
There is no dispute applications were made by the four applicants for grant of pucca stage carriage permits. The total distance of the route was 28.2 kms. and overlapping on the notified route was 22.6 kms. The length of the route outside the municipal limits was 20.5 kms.
Two issues arose before the Supreme Court
(i) Whether the permission of the Transport Commissioner contemplated in Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules should be obtained before an application for permit is filed for a route covered by a scheme notified under the Act ?
(ii) Whether the Transport Commissioner''s power to extend a town service route more than 8 kms. beyond the limits of the Municipality or town is unlimited ?
The Supreme Court after considering the rule position held at para 10 as follows :
"Bearing that in mind we have to construe Rule 258(2) in the light of Sections 98 to 100 and 104 of the Act. Section 98 provides that the provisions of Chapter VI and the Rules and Orders made thereunder shall have overriding effect against anything inconsistent in Chapter V or any other law for the time being in force. Section 99 deals with preparation and publication of proposals regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking. Section 100 deals with publication of proposal and a notification of the scheme after consideration of the objections to the proposal. Section 104 as stated earlier, prohibits the grant of any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Hence, for the purpose of Rule 258(2), if there is a scheme in force with reference to the concerned route, the authority has to adhere to the terms of the scheme. If there is an absolute bar in the scheme against the grant of any permit for the notified route or any portion of the route nothing further cold be done. On the other hand, if there is any exception provided in the scheme the applicant for a permit has to satisfy the authority concerned that he would fall within the scope of the exception. When the scheme provides an exception for the holders of stage carriage permit in respect of town service any applicant for permit claiming the benefit thereof has to necessarily satisfy the Regional Transport Authority that the route for which the permit is sought is a town service route. In order to establish the same the applicant for permit has to approach the Transport Commissioner in the first instance if the route for which permit is sought extends more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts. In such cases, it is only when the Transport Commissioner granted specific permission for extension of the route for more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the municipality or town, the Regional Transport Authority can consider the application for grant of permit and proceed to pass orders. It is only on the basis of the Transport Commissioner''s permission the Regional Transport Authority can determine the town service routes. Hence our answer to the first question is that the permission of the Transport Commissioner contemplated in Rule 258 (2) of the Rules has to be obtained before an application for permit is filed for a route covered by a scheme notified under the Act."
Admittedly, in the case on hand, the permission of the Transport Commissioner was not obtained before the application was filed with the RTA. The direction of the Supreme Court was very specific to the effect that the permission of the Transport commissioner contemplated in Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules has to be obtained before an application for permit is filed for a route covered by a scheme notified under the Act. Therefore, until and unless the permission is granted by the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258 (2)(ii) no application could lay before the RTA. In this writ petition, the application was filed without the permission of the Transport Commissioner, but, however, in pursuance of the directions granted by this Court, the Transport Commissioner was directed to consider the case for grant of permission under Rule 258(2)(ii) and pass appropriate orders and accordingly in compliance of the orders of this Court, the matter was considered and it was rejected by an order dated 2-9-1998. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, APSRTC ''s case (supra), it has to be held that the application itself was not maintainable before the RTA. Hence, this Court need not go into the validity or otherwise of the rejection order passed by the Transport Commissioner. In view of this decision, I need not refer to various decisions cited by the Counsel for the parties.
Another contention was raised by the learned Counsel that the law as existing on the date of the consideration of the applications by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are to be applied and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in APSRTC''s case (supra), being later in point of time cannot be applied to the case on hand. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Kasireddy Varahalu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Home (Transport III) Department, Hyderabad by its Secretary and Others, . It was a case where applications were made on 18-7-1957 for two permits and they were granted by the authorities on 31-5-1958. On an appeal filed by the aggrieved party, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, set aside the order of the RTA and remanded the case and on remand, the RTA granted permits in which appeals were preferred before the appellate authority. In the appeals, preliminary objection was taken that RTA had applied the law as it stood on 4-6-1962, the date of fresh consideration instead of applying the law which prevailed when the applications were called for. This preliminary objection was upheld by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded for consideration of the application with a direction that the RTA should dispose of the matter keeping in view not only Section 47, but also G.O. Ms. No.!037 dated 28-3-1953. Against this order, the petitioner filed the Revision Petition before the Government which was dismissed, against which writ petition was filed before the High Court. The Full Bench considered the matter as to whether the law which existed on the date of the application for permission has to be applied or whether the law existing on the date of the consideration of the application is applicable in disposing of the applications for permits. The Full Bench observed as follows : "While the above observations show that no definite view has been expressed, nonetheless, a reading of Section 47 with Rule 212 makes it evident that the law that has to be applied is the law at the time of the consideration of the applications for permits and not the law at the time when the applications have been first made. Section 47(1) says that a Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the several matters specified therein. It is therefore, clear that the several matters that have to be taken into consideration are those that are existing on the date when the applications are considered. One of the elements for screening an application as set out in Rule 212(iii)(2) is that if the history sheet of the operator is not clean and contains more than six entries relating to offences committed within twenty four months preceding the date of grant of the permit, that application cannot be considered. The history sheet which has to be considered is the history sheet as existing on the date of the grant of the permit, so that this again reinforces the contention that the law applicable or the circumstances that have to be taken into consideration are those which exist on the date when the permit is to be granted."
Even the Full Bench ruled that the application must be considered taking into consideration various factors that are existing on the date when the applications are considered. Undisputably, the matter was considered by the Transport Commissioner keeping in view the law, as existing on the date of the consideration. Therefore, the Full Bench decision is of no assistance to the applicant.
The Supreme Court in Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Another Vs. S.N. Thakur and Another, , dealing with the binding nature of the decisions referred by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India held that "there is nothing like any prospective operation alone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, but such law applies to all pending proceedings.
The Supreme Court further observed that even when several matters were disposed of by a common judgment and one of the defeated parties filed only one appeal against such matters and succeeds in that matters it was held that the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in one appeal takes away the finality of common judgment against those even against whom the appeals were not filed because of all pervasive force of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
In the instant case, the writ petitions were filed by the APSRTC aggrieved by the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered subsequent to the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. But, however, the matter was pending before this Court in writ petitions. Therefore, the law laid down by the Supreme Court has to be necessarily be followed having binding effect on all the Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution even in pending proceedings. Moreover, as already observed, the very application before the original authority itself was incompetent as it was not preceded by the sanction of the Transport Commissioner as required under Rule 258(2)(ii) of APMV Rules.
For the aforesaid reasons, the WP No.32055/1998 is dismissed. The WP Nos.18087/97, 18098/97, 18116/97 and 18162/1997 are admittedly against the orders of the Transport Appellate Tribunal and there is no dispute that the applications were filed without the permission of the Transport Commissioner. Therefore, when once the applications were not maintainable, the consideration by the RTA and the appellate authority i.e., State Transport Appellate Tribunal becomes irrelevant. Accordingly, WP Nos.18087/ 97, 18098/97, 18116/97 and 18162/97 are allowed.
No costs.