IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 1991 of 2000 BETWEEN: Smt.A.Meroon Bee W/o.Jahangir Hussain, R/o.D.No.10-102 Chinnamasjid Street, Cumbam Prakasam Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Surface Transport New Delhi. 2 Government of A.P, Rep. by its Secretary Transport R & B Department Secretariat. 3 State Transport Appellate Tribunal A.P, Hyderabad. 4 Regional Transport Authority, Ongole, rep. by its Secretary 5 A.P.S.R.T.C, rep. by its Managing Director Mushirabad, A.P Hyderabad. ...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 a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the provisions of Clause (Ca) of Section 3 of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 as Arbitrary, Irrational and ultravires of the provisions of Section 70,71,and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 and consequently held that the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P Hyderabad passedi n Appeal No.848/96 dated 25-8-1999 as illegal, with a further direction to the 4th respondent herein to issue the stage carriage permit on the route: Chintalapalem to J.C.Agraharam via Bestavaripet and Kottapalli in favour of the petitioner and to grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NOUSHAD ALI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner filed an application for grant of Pucca Stage Carriage Permit on the new fair weather route Chintalapalem to J.C. Agraharam (via) B. Pet, Papipalli, Kothapalli and Vangapadu and the said application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 09.08.1996 and rejected the same vide its resolution R.No.13181/A2/95 on the ground that the route applied by the petitioner overlaps the notified route published in G.O.Ms.No.250 dated 13.12.1987 of an extent of 12.4 KMs as against the permissible limit at 8 KMs. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in AP.No.848 of 1996 and the question that arose before the appellate Tribunal was as to whether the applicant was entitled for the grant of stage carriage permit on a route not formulated by the State Government under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and the tribunal dismissed the said appeal by order dated 25.08.1998 both on the ground that under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act the application of the petitioner cannot be considered without there being formulation of the route by the State Government under the aforesaid section and that the said route overlaps the notified route. Therefore, the petitioner questions the Constitutional validity of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act and also the validity of the order of the appellate tribunal in confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal considered the contention of the writ petitioner with regard to the formulation of the route alone to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act but while rejecting the said contention the appellate tribunal also confirmed the order of the regional Transport Authority on the ground that the route overlaps the notified route. Learned counsel fairly submits that the validity of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in N. SWARNALATHA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD[1] and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for consideration of his application in the absence of any formulation of the route by the State Government but the learned counsel submits that as there is a dispute with regard to overlapping, as and when any route has been formulated or opened by the State Government, the petitioner may be permitted to apply for the said route keeping it open the dispute relating to whether any such route opened by the State Government overlaps the notified route. As the petitioner is not entitled for consideration of his application in view of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act and in view of the absence of any formulation of route, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application as and when a new route is formulated or opened by the State Government. It is always open to the petitioner to make a representation before the Government to formulate a new route to cater to the needs of the public. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 11, 2009 DSK [1] 2001 (4) ALD 257 (DB)