THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24167 of 2000 Date: 13 .02.2008 Between: E. Satyavathi … Petitioner AND State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep., by its Presiding Officer & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Noushad Ali Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: G.P. for Transport. Counsel for Respondents.5 & 6: Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24167 of 2000 ORDER:- In this writ petition the petitioner sought for quashing of order dated 27.01.1984 of the State Transport Authority of Andhra Pradesh and order dated 21.06.1999 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the application of the petitioner for grant of pucca stage carriage permit was rejected and was confirmed respectively, by issuance of a writ of Certiorari. The father-in-law of the petitioner late E. Seetharamaiah was granted a pucca stage carriage permit on the interstate route Madakasira to Dorigallu via Dodagatta, Roddam, Penugonda, Kothacheruvu, Bukkapatnam, Pamudurthi and Mudigubba in the year 1950. It was an interstate route, with major portion falling in the State of Andhra Pradesh and a small length of 3.2 kms falling in the State of Karnataka. As the starting point and terminal point being located in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it is an enclave route within the meaning of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the 1939 Act’), which requires counter signature of the authority of the State other than the State, which granted the permit. It is the case of the petitioner that since no counter signature was obtained by the permit holder from the State of Karnataka, there was a self-curtailment of the permit which was operated between Doddagatta and Dorigallu by excluding portion of the route between Doddagatta and Madakasira. In the year 1978, as many as four schemes were published by the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.Nos.118, 135, 154 and 177 dated 04.03.1978. On 28.06.1990, another route was notified vide G.O.Ms.No. 261 between Mudigubba and Dharmavaram. These five schemes put together covered the entire route between Roddam and Dorigallu, which forms part of the route between Dorigallu and Madakasira in respect of which pucca stage carriage was originally granted in favour of the father- in-law of the petitioner. It is the common case of the parties that the schemes notified in the said G.Os., saved “the holders of existing stage carriage permits in respect of interstate routes”. The case of the petitioner is that consequent on the advent of the abovementioned approved schemes the petitioner’s operation was confined between Dodagatta and Roddam. The reason put-forth by the petitioner for this is that as there was no counter signature, they could not operate on the portion lying between Madakasira and Doddagatta, which fell within the State of Karnataka and after the publication of the approved schemes, they were not permitted to operate between Roddam and Doddagatta, which portion of the route, as mentioned above, is covered by one or the other notified routes. It is the further case of the petitioner that in law they are entitled to operate the permit on the entire route, namely, Madakasira to Dorigallu, because the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (for short, ‘the 1969 Act’), which came into force with effect from 30.12.1969 amended Section 63 of the 1939 Act by adding a proviso which envisaged that where both the starting point and terminal point of a route are situated within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed 16 kms., 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. It is thus the case of the petitioner that there was no legal impediment for operating on the route between Madakasira and Doddagatta even without a counter signature and also to operate on the route between Doddagatta and Dorigallu, because being the holder of stage carriage permit in respect of the interstate route, the permit is saved by all the five schemes. As the operation of the petitioner’s permit was restricted to the route between Roddam and Doddagatta, the petitioner’s father- in-law made an application for grant of a pucca permit on the route Madakasira to Mudigubba before respondent No.2. The said application was rejected by the said authority on 27.01.1984. The said order was originally challenged by the petitioner’s father-in- law by filing Writ Petition No.7226 of 1984. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner’s father-in-law died. Her mother- in-law, who was brought on record, having also died, the petitioner was brought on record as her legal representative. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.02.1994. This Court held that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 committed error in holding that the petitioner’s claim cannot be considered on the ground that there was no counter signature on her permit made by the competent authority of the Karnataka State as the said conclusion was contrary to the second proviso of Section 63 of Clause (1) of the 1939 Act. In the light of the said finding, the case was remanded to respondent No.1 “to decide the question of fact as to whether the petitioner is an existing operator on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu which is an enclave route on the relevant date and if so, whether she can be granted permit from Madakasira to Dorigallu in the light of the nationalization of the routes.” Respondent No.1 was directed to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. After remand, respondent No.1 re-considered the case and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by confirming the order of respondent No.2, by its order dated 21.6.1999. This order is questioned in this writ petition. Sri Naushad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the father-in-law of the petitioner was the holder of an inter-state stage carriage permit on the route Madakasira to Dorigallu, which is an enclave route with a small portion of 3.2 kms., lying in the State of Karnataka, that all the four schemes saved the holders of existing stage carriage permits in respect of inter-state routes and that the petitioner’s permit having not been curtailed by any official act, the petitioner is deemed to be the holder of existing stage carriage permit as on the dates when the approved schemes came into force in the year 1978, i.e., 4.3.1978. The learned counsel further submitted that prior to coming into force of the 1969 Act on 30.12.1969, an enclave route, irrespective of its length, requires a counter-signature by the competent authority of the other State and as the original permit-holder did not have the counter- signature of Karnataka State there was self curtailment of the permit between Doddagatta and Madakasira and the same position continued even after 30.12.1969. He further submitted that though the petitioner was entitled to operate the bus on the entire route after the said amendment and even after publication of the approved schemes in the year 1978, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner confined the operation of the permit between Doddagatta and Roddam by leaving out the portions between Madakasira and Dodagatta and Roddam and Dorigallu after 1978. He submitted that even after remand, respondent No.1 repeated the same error, which it committed earlier by taking into account irrelevant considerations, namely, absence of counter-signature and non-payment of tax on the route in question except between Doddagatta and Roddam. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no record was produced by the State before the two authorities below to prove that the petitioner’s permit was curtailed by any official proceedings as in the year 1978 and that in the absence of any such record, respondents 1 and 2 committed patent error in not treating the petitioner as holder of an existing inter-state stage carriage permit. The learned counsel also pointed that neither Sri A.Venkatesh Babu, who originally got impleaded as respondent No.5 nor Sri A.Radhakrishna Gupta, whose application was registered as W.P.M.P.No.1279 of 2008 for his impleadment as a respondent to the writ petition has locus standi to contest the writ petition. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur Vs. E.Rama Rao and Others[1]. Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the petitioner failed to file the permit held by her which constitutes withholding of material documents and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on that ground. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs., Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.,[2]. The learned counsel further contended that the material filed by his client shows that much before the nationalization of the route in question in the year 1978, the petitioner’s original route was curtailed by way of variations. According to the learned counsel on 22.1.1972 the original permit holder sought variation of the route Madakasira to Dorigallu as Madakasira to Dorigallu via Doddagatta, Roddam, Penukonda, Kothacheruvu, Bukkapatnam, Pamudurthi and Mudigubba, that before 31.12.1973 the permit was varied as Doddagatta to Dorigallu and on 31.12.1973 the permit holder sought for variation of the said route as Doddagatta to Kodavandlapally via Dorigallu with two additional routes between Penukonda and Bukkapatnam. The learned counsel therefore, submits that much before the notified schemes came into operation the original permit of the petitioner got varied as Doddagatta to Dorigallu and after the approved schemes came into force on 4.3.1978, there was further curtailment between Roddam and Dorigallu. The learned counsel further contended that respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1 gave categorical findings that in the absence of any documents produced by the petitioner in support of her contention that she was the holder of existing stage carriage permit on the route Dorigallu to Madakasira the peititoner is not entitled to grant of permit of inter-state route Madakasira to Dorigallu and that the said orders which do not suffer from any error of law, do not call for interference by this Court. As regards the objection to the locus standi of respondent No.6, the learned counsel argued that the mother of the applicant Smt.A.Kanakamma was the objector at the very inception before respondent No.2 and that the order of the learned Single Judge impleading respondent No.5 as a party to this writ petition was questioned by the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.843 of 2001 and that this Court dismissed the said writ appeal by order dated 15.6.2001 wherein the Division Bench rejected the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.5 has no locus standi. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport commended the correctness of the orders of both the authorities below. He also produced the record ffrom which he pointed out that endorsement dated 3.5.1973 made by the Secretgary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur shows that the original route Madakasira-Dorigallu was varied as Doddagatta to Dorigallu with two additional singles between Doddagatta and Penukonda with effect from 4.5.1973 and that therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the original permit, namely, Madakasira to Dorigallu was intact when the routes were nationalized, is liable to be rejected. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. The question that requires to be decided is whether as on 4.3.1978 when three approved schemes which admittedly cover the portion of the route between Roddam and Dorigallu came into force the petitioner was holding a stage carriage permit from Madakasira to Dorigallu? Admittedly, the petitioner failed to produce the original permit either before respondent No.2 or respondent No.1 or before this Court. The learned counsel for the impleaded parties vehemently submitted that as the petitioner is duty bound to produce the permit and as he failed to do so, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed without any further consideration of the pleas raised by her. He sought to fortify his submission in this regard by relying upon Section 42 of the 1939 Act and Rules 217, 218, 235, 238, 254, 255, 260, and 261 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules 1964 and the Judgement of the Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalaraya Naidu (supra). It is no doubt true that under the above mentioned Rules a permit-holder is under obligation to be in possession of the permit and there is a provision to issue duplicate permit also. Similarly, even for variation of permits, they are required to be produced before the competent authority and obtain necessary permits after such variations. The above referred Rules also deal with renewal of permits. The learned counsel for the petitioner however stated that the original permit was evidently surrendered before respondent No.2 at the time of publication of the approved schemes and the same is therefore not available with the petitioner. Having given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I do not feel inclined to non- suit the petitioner only on the ground that she failed to produce the original permit for more reasons than one, namely, 1) that the petitioner is pursuing the litigation for more than 25 years and it will be highly inequitable if the writ petition is thrown out on the ground of non-filing of the original permit, 2) whether the petitioner was an existing stage carriage permit-holder or not is an aspect which can be determined with reference to the available record irrespective of whether the petitioner produced the permit or not, and 3) this Court in W.P.No.7662 of 1986 did not disallow the petitioner’s claim on the ground of non-production of the original permit and the correctness or otherwise of the order of respondent No.1 passed after remand is required to be examined in the present writ petition. I have carefully gone through the judgment in S.P.Chengalaraya Naidu and I am satisfied that the ratio laid down therein has no application to the facts of the present case because by mere non-production of the original permit it cannot be said that the petitioner played fraud on the court to be non-suited. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have no locus standi, I find no substance in the said contention. It is an undisputed fact that right from the word ‘go’ when the petitioner’s predecessor-in- interest initiated the proceedings for obtaining a fresh permit, the mother of respondent No.6 and thereafter respondents 5 and 6 respectively have been resisting the efforts to obtain fresh permit. The Division Bench in W.A.No.843 of 2001 gave finding that if the 1939 Act applies, respondent No.5 would have locus standi to raise the objection regarding the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. It is agreed by the learned counsel for both the parties that it is the 1939 Act which applies to the present case and therefore there can be no manner of doubt that respondent No.6 has locus standi to oppose the application of the petitioner for grant of a fresh permit. In this view of the matter, the judgment of this Court in E.Rama Rao (1 supra) which was rendered applying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has no bearing on the case on hand. In its order dated 27.1.1984 passed by respondent No.2 it held that the applicant was not the original permit holder on the inter-state route on the date when the approved schemes came into force, that he never held a permit of inter-state route with due counter-signature, that though a permit was granted to him on the inter-state route it was not counter-signed by the authorities of the Karnataka State authorities unless double point tax was paid and that long before the approval of the schemes on 4.3.1978 the petitioner’s permit was rendered in-effective. The said authority in the said order stated that it considered the arguments with reference to record. But regrettably it failed to point out the relevant documents and give specific findings as to how, when and in what manner the original permit on the route Madakasira- Dorigallu was varied up to the year 1978 when the approved schemes came into force. Added to this, it mixed up the issue of counter-signature and non-payment of tax, which was found to be irrelevant by this court in W.P.No.7662 of 1986, in view of the amendment introduced in the year 1969, doing away with the need for counter signature. In the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 after remand, it is observed as under: “In the present case no doubt the petitioner was a permit holder on the route in question since 1950 when the route was nationalized and the enclaved route became part of inter – state be curtailed plying his vehicle on this route and limited to a certain extent within the A.P. State as part of the route became inter state route. Whether it is an Official act or voluntary act, he is operating his vehicle only on the curtailed route but, “not on the enclaved route”. It is not his case that he has been paying tax for the entire route but has curtailed the operation of his vehicle only to a certain extent. In fact, the permit is granted for running the vehicle for the public convenience from point to point when he attends to curtail it, it amounts to variation and he ought have taken permission from the concerned authorities to curtail the operation of the permit. It is not his case that he kept permit alive for the entire route by paying tax to be concerned authorities. It is here relevant to refer to the observation made in the impugned order. “Though a permit was granted to him on this inter- State route it was not counter signed by the Karnataka authorities unless double point tax was paid as admitted by the applicant. This happened long before the approval of the schemes in March, 1978 and therefore his permit was also rendered ineffective.” The reading of these observations undoubtedly establish that the petitioner has failed to pay the double point tax and also failed to get counter signature by the Karnataka authorities and thereby he did not keep the permit alive even long before 1978. As operator can be said as saved operator provided he holds a valid permit by the date of the notification of the scheme. As observed by me supra holdings a valid permit indicate holding an approved permit on fulfilling the conditions of the permit such as payment of tax to the concerned States. As per his own version he did not operate his vehicle on the route in question but only to a certain extent and it is not his case that he kept alive the permit granted to him long back by paying the tax though he curtailed the old act under which he was granted permit and he cannot take advantage of the new act saying that the counter signature is not necessary. This plea can be accepted provided be kept his permit alive by paying tax at least by the date of the notification of the scheme. Apparently the petitioner was not operating on the route Madakasira to Dorigal which is an enclaved route, the petitioner has failed to place any material to accept his contention that he was holding a valid permit on the date of notification on the enclave route. Holding permit in the past cannot be said that he was an operator on the date of notification and he cannot said an existing operator on the route on the crucial date. There must be a positive evidence to show that he was an existing operator on the route by the date of the scheme or notification. Unfortunately the petitioner has failed to place any material to prove his contention on the other hand. Even as per his own version as observed supra he was operating on the route to a certain extent but not on the enclaved route. These things conclusively establish that the petitioner is not having a valid permit and was not operating on the route Madakasira to Dorigal which is an enclave route on the relevant date and as such he is not entitled for the grant of the permit. I find this point accordingly against the appellant.” The above re-produced portion of the order of respondent No.1, carefully read, reveals contradictory observations. In the earlier part of the order, respondent No.1 observed that the petitioner was the permit holder on the route in question since 1950 “when the route was nationalized”. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on this observation in support of his contention that as on the date when the approved schemes came into operation, she was holding the permit on the entire route. The above- mentioned observation of respondent No.1 lacks clarity and if the said observation is read in isolation it is possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. But if the said observation is read in the light of the rest of the order, its effect gets watered down. Though this Court in W.P.lNo.7662 of 1986 held that both respondents 1 and 2 committed serious error in relying upon absence of counter-signature and non-payment of tax, respondent No.1 fell into error by re-iterating the reasoning of respondent No.2 contained in its order dated 27.1.1984 which was set aside by this Court in the said writ petition. It also observed that whether curtailment is an official act or voluntary act, the permit-holder was operating the vehicle only on the curtailed route but not on the entire route and that therefore, he cannot be treated as holding a valid permit. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why respondent No.1 rested its conclusions on inferences and surmises instead of summoning the record and carefully perusing the same in order to arrive at a definite finding as to whether the original permit on the route in question was at any time varied and what exactly was the permit that was in existence as on 4.3.1978 when the three approved schemes were notified. Respondent No.1, evidently failed to keep in view that being the appellate tribunal it is its duty to determine the factual disputes with reference to the record and instead of arriving at the finding of fact based on record it rejected the petitioner’s claim on the ground that she failed to produce positive evidence to show that she was an existing operator on the route when the schemes were notified. In my considered view by making this approach, respondent No.1 failed to carry out the direction given by this court in W.P.No.7662 of 1986 wherein, as noted above, this Court directed it to decide the question of fact as to whether the petitioner was an existing operator on the relevant date. Had respondent No.1 spared some efforts to look into the record and render a finding of fact on the specific issue, which was directed to be decided by this Court, it would have avoided rendering findings which are conflicting and ambiguous. On a careful consideration of the impugned order, I am of the view that respondent No.1 failed to decide the issue from a proper perspective with reference to the facts on record. Learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that in view of the above mentioned endorsement made on 3.5.1973 which proved that the petitioner’s route was varied as Doddagatta to Dorigallu, it has to be held that the petitioner was not holder of