Yarlagadda Thirupathi Rayudu vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Umamaheswaram, J.—This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government in G.O. RT. No. 53, Transport Department. Government of Andhra, dated 27th November. 1953. The stage carnage ''permit issued to the Petitioner in respect Of bus M.D.G. 1737 was suspended for six months by the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, on the ground* that there was an overloading of passengers. The order of the Regional Transport Authority was confirmed by the Central Road Traffic Board, on appeal, and by the Government on a revision petition filed u/s 64-A. The Petitioner has consequently filed the writ to quash the order of suspension.

The simple question raised by Srimathi Amareswari on behalf of the Petitioner is, whether the orders passed by the Transport Authorities are not vitiated by the omission to refer to the statements given by respectable persons that the bus was not overloaded. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner it is stated that; four, respectable persons, ''(1) Sri Gorantla Ramaiah. District Board Member, Veerannapalem, (2) Dodda Venkataswami, Ex-President Panchayat Board. Annabhatlavaripalem, (3) 8. Radhakrishnamurthy. President, Annabhatlavaripalem, Panchayat Board and (4) M. Venkatasubbiah, teacher, Parachoor. who travelled by the same bus on 30th May, 1953, gave statements before the Regional Transport Authority that there was no overloading''. It is surprising that there is no reference to their statements in the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority which exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in suspending the permit should have taken into consideration the entire evidence and decided whether there was overloading. The Transport Authority erred in giving its judgment merely on the report of the Deputy Superintendent/of Police.

It appears that the Petitioner raised in the r/funds of appeal to the Central Traffic Board that ic Regional Transport Authority erred in not re-;ring to and acting upon the statements given bv respectable persons that there was no overloading of the bus. From the file of papers produced bv the Government Pleader we find that the remarks of the Regional Transport Authority were called for by the Central Road Traffic Board and that the following remarks were made in paragraph 4:

The Appellant brought some persons to the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority was not convinced by the oral statements given by them." The Central Road Traffic Board dismissed the appeal accepting the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the bus was travelling at about a speed of 45 miles, that he overtook it and that, on checking; he found it overloaded. In the order of the Central Road Traffic Board, it is not, stated that the report sent by the Regional Transport Authority was accepted Or that th3 statements made by respectable witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner were, rejected. Even in the order passed by the Government, in revision, there is no reference to these.'' statements. But in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in this Court, it is stated as follows:

Certain persons were brought as witnesses before the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, who were examined and their testimony was rejected as not satisfactory. The Regional Transport Authority has correctly rejected the explanation of the Petitioner.

It is well settled that the Transport Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act exercise judicial or quasi-judicial function. The Regional ;Transport Authority is therefore bound to record the statements of persons examined before it so ''as to enable this Court as also truth higher authorities, on appeal or revision, to examine those statements and decide whether its conclusions are correct or not. It is surprising that when four respectable witnesses were examined on behalf of the Petitioner to support his case that there was no overloading, the Regional Transport Authority did not record their statements. It is also regrettable that the Transport Authority did not discuss their evidence or give reasons for leji''ciini'', that evidence. The. remarks passed by r.lv Regional ''1 Vans-port Authority on the appeal petition presented to the Central Road Traffic Board cannot, in any sense, be treated as part, of the original order. Moreover, from the orders passed by the On I nil Hoard ''iYallio Hoard and the Government, it does not appear that they acted upon the remarks made by the Regional Transport Authority. As the merits given by the four respectably witnesses have not been reduced to writing and are not on ''record and as no reasons have been given to reject their statements or to prefer the report of ; order ''to be passed by this Court is to quash i order to be passed by this Court is to quash order i of suspension. The writ is therefore allowed and the order of the Government confirming the order of the Central Road Traffic Board and the Regional Transport Authority suspending the permit is set aside. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs from the Respondents. Advocate''s fee is fixed at Rs. 100.