IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9197 of 2002 Between: Y.Anil Kumar Reddy S/o. Dasaradharami Reddy R/o. Varigonda Village, T.P.Gudur mandal, Nellore District, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Transport Authority Rep by its Secretary, Nellore 3 State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari Calling for records from the file of the 3rd Respondent herein and quash the order of the 3rd respondent herein passed in R.P.17/2000, dt.28.2.2002 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order, dated 28.02.2002 made in R.P.No.17 of 2000, on the file of the third respondent-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, wherein the revision petition filed by the first respondent- Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation being aggrieved by the order, dated 26.10.1999, passed by the second respondent- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nellore in item No.72 in R.No.22418/A2/1996, granting one pucca stage carriage permit to the petitioner on the town service route Railway under Bridge in Nellore to T.P.Gudur via. P.W.D.Office, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Chinthareddypalem, Vaviletipadu, 4th Mile, Kakupalli, R.V.Kandriga, Varigonda Cross Road, Varigonda Village, T..Gudur (Kothuru Gamallapalem), was allowed. It appears that the petitioner made an application before the second respondent for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply on Town Service route Railway under Bridge, Nellore to T.P.Gudur for a distance of 15.4 Kms, out of which, 3.3 Kms was within the town and 12.1 Kms was beyond the town limits. However, the said application was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, he filed AP No.321/98 before the third respondent, and the said appeal was allowed by order, dated 10.03.1999 and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Thereafter, the second respondent passed orders on 26.10.1999 granting one pucca stage carriage permit to the petitioner. However, the route was modified as moffusil route, without therebeing any application filed by the petitioner and without issuing any notice to the first respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent carried the matter in revision in R.P.No.17 of 2000 before the third respondent. The third respondent, while holding that without therebeing any application filed for modification of the route the impugned order dated 26.10.1999 was passed; that Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) deals with the filing of application for stage carriage permit; that Section 72 of the Act deals with the grant of stage carriage permits; that in the instant case the application was made for grant of stage carriage permit for town service route and there was no application for grant of permit to ply stage carriage on moffusil route, and therefore, the grant of permit under the impugned order by the primary authority was contrary to the provisions of Section 72(1) of the Act, allowed the revision by order dated 28.02.2002 setting aside the order passed by the primary authority. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition is filed. This Court, on 14.05.2002, while admitting the writ petition, granted status quo. However, by that time the permit granted in favour of the petitioner was already cancelled in view of the impugned order. Apart from that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the revisional authority has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When there was no application for grant of moffusil service, the primary authority would not have granted permit for moffusil route and muchless would not have modified the town service permit to that of moffusil service without putting the first respondent on notice. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 09.07.2009 va