IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.16491 of 2002 Between: Y.V.Raghava. … Petitioner And State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, reptd., by Presiding Officer and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri T.Venkata Ramana. Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 30-3-2000 passed in A.P.No.593/97 by respondent No.1, whereby it conﬁrmed order dated 11-3-1997 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri T.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner ﬁled an application before respondent No.1 for grant of stage carriage permit on the route Rajaratna theatre to Teki in Mandapeta Town. Respondent No.2 by order dated 11-3-1997 rejected the said application on the ground that the proposed route overlaps a distance of 0.2 Kms., on the notiﬁed route Machilipatnam to Visakhapatnam. Respondent No.2 observed that at Rajaratna theatre there is no space to take a turn; the petitioner’s bus has to travel a distance of 0.2 Kms., to take a turn; and, in the said process, it overlaps the notiﬁed route covered by G.O.Ms.No.782/72. Respondent No.2 also observed that the length of the route lying in Mandapeta is 3.1 Kms; rest of the route falling outside Mandapet town is 13.8 Kms; and, therefore, it is more of mofussil in nature than town service. The petitioner ﬁled an appeal before respondent No.1, which was taken on ﬁle as A.P.No.593 of 1997. The said Appeal was dismissed on a completely new ground, viz., that the sketch ﬁled by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mandapeta, does not indicate that the route in question was an existing route and that when the distance, beyond the Municipal limits, is 13.8 Kms., the petitioner has to approach the Transport Commissioner seeking permission. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ﬁnding of respondent No.2 that there is no space at Rajaratna theatre to negotiate a turn is incorrect as there is enough space at Rajaratna theatre to take a turn. He also submitted that respondent No.1 has taken a completely new ground to dismiss the appeal - viz. that the route for which the petitioner applied for permit was not an existing route - which was never the case before respondent No.2. Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that though respondent No.2 has not given a speciﬁc ﬁnding as to whether the route in question was an existing route or a new route, respondent No.1, having regard to the material on record, gave the ﬁnding that it was a new route, which requires the prior permission of the Transport Commissioner. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.2 shows that the main ground on which the petitioner’s application for grant of stage carriage permit was rejected was that due to lack of space at Rajaratan theatre the petitioner’s bus will be required to travel a distance of 0.2 Kms., over the notiﬁed route and, therefore, permit cannot be granted. Of course, an incidental observation was made saying that the route, which falls outside the town limits of Mandapeta for a distance of 13.8 Kms., is more of mofussil in nature than town service. Respondent No.1, however, dismissed the appeal totally on a new ground, viz., that the route in question is not an existing route. In my considered view, in the absence of proper pleading raised and deﬁnite material paced before respondent No.1, the ﬁnding of respondent No.1 that the route in question is not an existing route, cannot be sustained; more so, when the appeal was being dismissed on a ground which did not ﬁnd a place in the order passed by respondent No.2. While the petitioner claims that the route for which the petitioner applied for stage carriage permit is a town service route, respondent No.2 gave equivocal ﬁnding that it is more of a mofussil in nature without giving a specific finding in this regard. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. Orders of respondents 1 and 2 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 to render speciﬁc ﬁndings on the basis of the material available on record in respect of the following aspects: 1) Whether the route for which the petitioner applied for permit is an existing town service route or not? and 2) Whether the space at Rajaratna theatre is suﬃcient for the petitioner’s bus to negotiate a turn without having to travel on the notiﬁed route covered by G.O.Ms.No.782/72. Respondent No.2 shall decide these issues after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the State Transport Undertaking. ------------------------- ----------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 15-10-2008 MNR