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 MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21757 of 2002 Between: 1 J.Prabhakara Rao, S/o.Ranganayakulu, Hindu, R/o.Ichapuram, Srikakulam District. 2 B.Kalyani, W/o.B.Rajendra Prasad, Hindu, Kaviti, Kaviti Mandal, Via. Ichapuram. Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its Presiding Officer, Manoranjan Complex, Near Ajantha Gate of Exhibition Grounds, Mojamjahi, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The State Transport Authority, A.P., By its Secretary, Sri Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, 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 a Writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, by calling for the records from the file of the 1st respondent in R.P.No.14/2001 and quash its order dated:23.9.2002 made therein to grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI KALLAKURI SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 23.09.2002, passed by the first respondent - State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad in R.P.No.14/2001, whereunder the permit granted in favour of the petitioners herein was set aside and the matter was remanded to the primary authority for reconsideration. It appears that the petitioners applied for pucca stage carriage permits on the Inter-State enclave route from Donkuru Bridge to Ichapuram. The total length of the route is 16.4 Kms, out of which, 1.3 Kms falls in the State of Orissa and the remaining 15.1 Kms falls in the State of Andhra Pradesh. When the application filed by the petitioners was not disposed of, they have approached this Court and filed W.P.No.16291 of 1999 and the same was disposed of directing the primary authority to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. The matter was taken up in the meeting held by the State Transport Authority, A.P., Hyderabad on 16.10.1999 and it had resolved to grant one pucca stage carriage permit to the petitioners, in public interest. Thereafter, both the petitioners were operating on the said route. That being so, the third respondent carried the matter in revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both the parties, remanded the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the same afresh after giving opportunity to the revision petitioner and the petitioners herein of being heard and the matter was directed to be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the petitioners herein were permitted to operate their stage carriages on the route in question, till the matter is decided by the primary authority. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. This Court admitted this writ petition on 11.11.2002 and granted interim suspension as prayed for on 03.01.2003. Thus, the petitioners are operating their stage carriages on the route in question till date. Sri T.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that when the matter was heard by the primary authority on 16.10.1999, the learned counsel for the third respondent was present before it and filed vakalat, but he did not advance any contentions. In fact, the said fact was recorded in the order passed by the primary authority. In spite of the same the revision petition filed by the third respondent was entertained by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the learned counsel for the third respondent was not heard though he was present in the meeting held by the primary authority. Learned counsel further stated that though the learned counsel for the third respondent was present before the primary authority, he did not make any submission, which would mean that the third respondent had no objection for grant of permits in favour of the petitioners. Since the primary authority has resolved on 16.10.1999 to grant one pucca stage carriage permit to the petitioners on the route in question, now it is not open for the third respondent to contend that it was not given any opportunity to advance arguments. Per contra, Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that he filed vakalath on 16.10.1999 and participated in the meeting held by the primary authority. He further contended that since he had no instructions, he sought for time, but the same was noted in order dated 16.10.1999 as if the third respondent has not advanced any contentions. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. The contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent was that the route in question was overlapping the notified route approved in G.O.Ms.Nos.1111 and 1066, dated 09.11.1987 for a distance of 6 Kms., and that as per the conditions of the scheme there is a prohibition for grant of permits. Therefore, such permits ought not to have been granted. This could not be brought to the notice of the primary authority by the third respondent as he had no instructions by that time. Therefore, it appears that the primary authority did not grant time to the third respondent to advance arguments or place the records before it. In those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the revisional authority has rightly allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the primary authority for fresh consideration, by protecting the interest of the petitioners in the meanwhile. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 15.06.2009 va