IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12174 of 2002 Between: A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Manoranjan Complex, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad, Andhara Pradesh 2 State Transport Authority, Rep. by its Secretary Hyderabad, A.P. 3 Sri D.Raghava Reddy S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, Devarintepalli, Nalla Cheruvu (P), Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 7-9-2001 made in A.P.No.127/99 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, setting aside the order dated -2-1999 in item No.43 in R.No.4718/B1/95 and directing issue of permit to 3rd respondent on the route Tanakalu to Mulakalacheruvu and quash the same as being hit by the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) and 104 of M.V. Act, 1988. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KALLAKURI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT SMT. Y.B. SARASWATHI The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is directed against an order dated 07.09.2001 passed in A.P.No.127 of 1999 on the file of the 1st respondent- State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad, whereunder the order passed by the 2nd respondent- State Transport Authority, A.P., Hyderabad, rejecting the application of the 3rd respondent for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on the enclave route Tanakalu to Mulakalacheruvu, was set aside and the appeal was allowed, directing the Secretary, State Transport Authority, A.P., to issue such permit to the 3rd respondent . It appears, the 3rd respondent, as a new entrant, filed an application before the 2nd respondent- State Transport Authority, A.P., Hyderabad, the primary authority, seeking to grant him pucca stage carriage permit on the enclave route Tanakalu to Mulakalacheruvu via Ethodu, Kumarillu, Chakivelu, Pedapalli, Mallireddipalli, Kandukuru and Bonthalapalli. The 2nd respondent rejected the said application on the grounds that the route in question overlaps the notified routes by 25.4 kms. and the conditions laid down in the schemes under G.O.Ms.No.768 dated 03.06.1975, G.O.Ms.Nos.370 and 358 dated 16.04.1979 and G.O.Ms.No.394 dated 19.04.1979 do not allow grant of permits to new entrants. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal in A.P.No.127 of 1999 before the 1st respondent- State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad. The 1st respondent, holding that the schemes under G.O.Ms.Nos.358, 370 and 394 shall not affect the holders of stage carriage permits including existing and future permit holders and, therefore, those schemes do not come in the way of the 3rd respondent to get the permit and that partial overlapping is not prohibited under G.O.Ms.No.768 and, under exemption clause 5 of the note therein, it exempts the applicant from the affect of the scheme, allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 07.09.2001 and directed the 2nd respondent to issue permit to the 3rd respondent as sought for. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. While admitting the writ petition on 08.07.2002, this Court, by order in W.P.M.P.No.15036 of 2002, granted interim suspension of the impugned order until further orders and the same was made absolute on 13.09.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the route in question overlaps the notified routes covered under G.O.Ms.No.768, 370, 358 and 394, and therefore the 3rd respondent is not entitled for grant of pucca stage carriage permit on the route in question, as rightly noticed by the primary authority- the 2nd respondent. He further contends that, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in DM, APSRTC, Vizianagaram v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P.[1], new permits cannot be granted in relation to a part of route which would be overlapping the existing routes and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contends that, in fact, neither the primary authority nor the appellate authority have considered as to the actual overlapping of the subject route on the notified routes and that no evidence was led in by either of the parties and, therefore, the matter needs to be considered afresh by the primary authority. In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel on either side and in view of the decision of the Full Bench referred to above, both the orders passed by the primary authority and the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the 2nd respondent in item No.43 in R.No.4718/B1/95 and the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 07.09.2001, in A.P.No.127 of 1999, are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for consideration afresh and for passing appropriate orders as per law, after putting all the interested parties on notice. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 15th June, 2009. IBL [1] 2001 (6) ALD 408 (FB)