Villa Venkata Rao vs Secretary State Transport Authority

P. Jyothimani, J.—These writ petitions are filed by the Petitioner challenging the orders of the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Union

Territory of Puducherry, who is the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 and the sole Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008, dated

24.9.2008 and 6.10.2008 respectively and for a direction against the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole Respondent in W.P. No.

29555 of 2008) to grant Stage Carriage Permit to the Petitioner on the route Yanam to Sakkinattipalli.

2.1. The Petitioner was granted a Stage Carriage Permit by the State Transport Authority, Puducherry for the route Sakkinattipalli to Yanam in the

year 1994. In a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation before this Court, the proceedings were stayed. Ultimately,

the writ petition was disposed with a direction to the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation to decide the applications for renewal of the

permit.

2.2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Puducherry have entered a reciprocal agreement under the Motor Vehicles

Act (for brevity, ""the Act""), under which only two buses have been allotted in favour of the Government of Puducherry in respect of the route

Sakkinattipalli to Yanam.

2.3. The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 33908 of 2007 before this Court for a direction to the State Transport Authority, Puducherry to issue Stage

Carriage Permits on the routes Yanam to Sakkinattipalli and Yanam to Rajahmundry, which was disposed on 22.2.2008 directing the authority to

pass orders. The first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008), by order dated 21.10.2008,

refused to issue the Stage Carriage Permit. The Petitioner has applied to the Secretary, State Transport Authority to furnish copy of the

proceedings granting two Stage Carriage Permits to Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation Limited. However, it was after filing application

under the Right to Information Act, the copy of the proceedings dated 24.9.2008 was furnished to the Petitioner. The application of the Petitioner

for grant of permit was rejected by proceedings dated 6.10.2008.

2.4. It is against the said orders, these writ petitions are filed on various grounds, including that the order dated 24.9.2008 is not passed by the

State Transport Authority, Puducherry, a three members committee constituted under the provisions of the Act, which alone is entitled to decide

about the grant of Stage Carriage Permits; that while other applications were pending before the State Transport Authority, the application of the

Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation Limited alone has been singled out and permit was granted; and that in fairness, all the applications

should have been considered by the State Transport Authority.

3.1 In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Puducherry, it is stated that the Petitioner was granted Stage Carriage

Permit on the route Yanam to Rajahmundry for the period between 3.2.1995 and 2.2.2000 and the said permit was challenged in this Court by the

Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, which is an undertaking of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P. No. 2661 of

1995 on the ground that the route overlaps in the scheme route of Andhra Pradesh and in view of the stay granted by this Court, the plying of the

vehicle was stopped.

3.2. It is stated that the Petitioner submitted further renewal application on 5.1.2000 for a further period of five years from 3.2.2000 to 2.2.2005,

which was kept pending. He also applied for a temporary permit on 27.1.2000, which was replied by stating that this Court has granted stay. It

was by order dated 10.7.2002, the High Court has directed the State Transport Authority, Puducherry to consider the claim of the Petitioner after

hearing both sides, namely the Petitioner as well as the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

3.3. It is stated that hearing was held on 18.6.2003 and the application for renewal of permit made by the Petitioner was rejected on 5.8.2003 and

the same was communicated to the Petitioner on 13.8.2003 and therefore, the renewal of permit from Yanam to Rajahmundry could not be

considered.

3.4. The State Transport Authority, Puducherry has considered the application of the Petitioner for grant of regular permit from Yanam to

Sakkinattipalli and directed the Petitioner to produce valid records of the vehicle. The validity of the proceedings was extended on various

occasions up to 28.10.1996 and thereafter the Petitioner has not claimed for any further extension nor produced any records. Therefore,

according to the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008), the grant in the said route has

lapsed on 28.10.1996 and that being so, the claim of renewal after 12 years cannot be entertained.

3.5. It is stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.2.2008 in W.P. No. 33908 of 2007, the application for grant of regular

stage carriage permit on the inter-State route of Sakkinattipalli to Yanam, via Razole, Ravulapalam, R.C. Puruam and Draksharama, was

examined on the basis of the available records. In the meantime, the Union Territory of Puducherry and Government of Andhra Pradesh have

entered an inter-State Agreement, based on which two buses have been allotted in favour of the Government of Puducherry in respect of the route:

Sakkinattipalli to Yanam, via Razole, Ravulapalam, R.C. Puram and Draksharama.

3.6. It is stated that the State Transport Authority, Puducherry has considered the application of Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation,

Puducherry, a Government of Puducherry undertaking, and granted two permits on the route Sakkinattipalli to Yanam and therefore, the routes

have been filled up and in the absence of inter-State route as on date, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be considered. It is stated that as per the

Act, the existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power and in the absence of the route, there is no right on the part of the

Petitioner and therefore, the claim of the Petitioner came to be rejected. It is also stated that the order passed is not by an individual, but by the

authority constituted under the Act.

u/s 88(1) of the Act, which is as follows:

Section 88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted.

(1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other

region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State

shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport

Authority concerned:

Provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region, for any area in any other region or regions

within the same State, shall be valid in that area without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of

the other regions concerned:

Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in

any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometres, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of

the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional

Transport Authority of that other State:

Provided also that -

(a) where a motor vehicle covered by a permit granted in one State is to be used for the purposes of defence in any other State, such vehicle shall

display a certificate, in such form, and issued by such Authority, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to

the effect that the vehicle shall be used for the period specified therein exclusively for the purposes of defence; and

(b) any such permit shall be valid in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority

or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State.

it is true that unless the route is available, no permit can be granted. When, as per the inter-State agreement between the Government of Andhra

Pradesh and Union Territory of Puducherry, two routes have been permitted and the Union Territory of Puducherry has granted the route to

Government owned undertaking, namely Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation Limited, certainly it means that there is no other route available

to enable the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008) to grant permit to the Petitioner.

In Ashwani Kumar and Another Vs. Regional Transport Authority Bikaner and Another, , it was held that in the absence of existence of inter-

State route, the authority is not justified in granting the permit, in the following words:

The Act envisages three categories of permit-seekers, namely (i) Inter-region, (ii) Intra-region and (iii) inter-State. Different criteria and procedure

has been provided under the Act for granting permits in respect of each of the categories. The grant of inter-State permits with which we are

concerned in these appeals are permissible u/s 88(5) of the Act. The existence of a route is a condition precedent for exercise of the power under

Sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the Act. Intra State route under the scheme of the Act has to be reciprocal and cannot be unilaterally created by

one State or an Authority in the State. The concerned State Governments are supposed to deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter-

State routes by determining the number of trips each route to have and prescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve

its objective which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation.

(emphasis supplied)

However, it is the case of the Petitioner that the route is still available, as it is seen in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner dated 21.6.2010, stating

that the service was not allowed after 24.9.2008. It is specifically stated in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner that the two permits granted to the

Corporation on the route Yanam to Sakkinattipalli have been revoked. That is seen in the information obtained by the Petitioner under the Right to

Information Act from the Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Puducherry dated 8.4.2010, wherein it is stated as follows:

With reference to your application cited above, the Xerox of 2 applications in Form P. St. C.A. Submitted for grant of stage carriage permit on the

route Sakinetipalli to Yanam, by M/s. P.R.T.C, with their covering letter dated 23/07/2008, affixed C.N:24933 and 24934 and the Xerox copy

the proceedings No:24933/TD/TP-1/2008 dated 24/09/2008, of STA are enclosed herewith as desired. No service was allowed after

24/09/2008.

Even though as per the pleadings the permit has been granted in favour of the Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation Limited in respect of

the said route, viz., Yanam to Sakkinattipalli, by virtue of the latest information received by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act to the

effect that there was no service available in the said route as on date, I am of the considered view that without going into the correctness or

otherwise of the impugned orders, the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008) should be

directed to consider the application of the Petitioner for the purpose of grant of permit.

For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction against the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole

Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008) to consider the application of the Petitioner for the purpose of grant of permit and if such route is still

available, the first Respondent in W.P. No. 26492 of 2008 (sole Respondent in W.P. No. 29555 of 2008) shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders regarding the grant of permit to the Petitioner, subject to all other requirements under the Act and such orders shall be passed

within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in W.P. No. 26492

of 2008 is closed.