IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 2443 of 2007 Between: M.G.B. Automotives Pvt.Ltd, Bellary, Rep.by its Managing Director- M.Raghunath, S/o.M.S.Sivanna, Plot Nos.6 and 15, Industrial Area, Anantapur Road, Bellary-583103. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Transport Commissioner & Secretary & Secretary, State Transport Authority, Tansport Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 M.Nurul Huda, Bus Owner, D.No.8/408, Opp. Regal Talkies, Guntakal, Anantapur Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ,order or direction, preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 14-12-2006 made in R.P.No.217/2004 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same, and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.2443 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, first respondent herein, dated 14.12.2006 in R.P.No.217 of 2004, whereby and whereunder order of second respondent, dated 21.07.2004 refusing the application of third respondent for revision of timings to his stage carriage No.AP.02/T.8456 covered by permit No.3/65 valid upto 08.10.2008 plying on the inter-State route Gooty to Bellary via Guntakal and Hagari as proposed by him. The petitioner is a transferee of a stage carriage permit, which was hitherto held by Sivaram (present stage carriage No.KA 34 5633). The third respondent, who holds permit for stage carriage made an application on 10.06.2004 to second respondent seeking revision of timings. He sought revision of the timings for departure at Bellary from 09.15 pm to 8.45 pm. P.Sivaram opposed application by filing objections. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) reported no objection for proposed timings. Second respondent rejected the revision of timings holding that it would affect the interest of the sector operator. This was challenged by way of revision before first respondent, who reversed the order of second respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner placed strong reliance on Rule 181 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules, for brevity) and submits that impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record, in that there are no special circumstances warranting revision of timings and any revision of timings would affect the interest of petitioner. The order of second respondent rejecting the revision of timings sought by third respondent would certainly suffers from an error in the sense that the purport of Rule 181 of the Rules was given a go-by, as the interest of a rival sector operator has no bearing within the scope of Rule 181 of the Rules. Secondly, third respondent sought revision of timings from 8.30 pm to 9.15 pm; to 8.30 pm to 8.45 pm on the ground that if he leaves Bellary at 9.15 pm as it was done earlier, he would be reaching Guntakal at 10.45 pm and would not be able to attend small repairs to the vehicle. This weighed with first respondent obviously for the reason that keeping the bus fit for running a long route is in the public interest. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order especially when admittedly APSRTC and KSRTC have no objection for revision of timings in favour of third respondent. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 11.12.2008 pln