Case: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. K. Venkataramireddy and Others

GROVER, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by special leave against a common judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.2. The appellant is a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the "Act". It applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Warangal, for grant of temporary permits under Section 62 of the Act on the route Thorrur to Hyderabad via Kodakondla, Thirumalagiri and Jangaon. A portion of the said route between Jangaon and Thirumalagiri is a part of the notified route and another portion of the route between Jangaon and Hyderabad is also a part of the notified route. All other operators were excluded from operating on the notified routes. Respondent 1 and 2 who are private operators plying stage carriages on the route Valigonda to Thorrur filed writ petitions in the High Court. According to them the appellant was not entitled to the grant of temporary permits. By a common judgment, dated November 1, 1966, the learned Single Judge dismissed those petitions. It was held, inter alia, that neither individual nor personal rights of the writ petitioners had been affected. The learned Judge, however, observed that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant temporary permits under Section 62 of the Act in respect of a notified route or such portion of it as had been notified. Respondents 1 and 2 filed appeals to a division bench of the High Court. The division bench allowed the appeals and came to the conclusion that the granting of temporary permits to the State Transport Undertaking on notified routes amounted to a modification of the scheme which could only be done by adopting the procedure indicated in Chapter IV-A and that having not been done the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant temporary permits in respect of notified routes. It was further held that the writ petitioners had locus standi to maintain the writ petitions.3. These appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. The appellant held permanent permits for the routes in question. It had also applied for the grant of temporary permits under Section 62 of the Act. That section empowers the State Transport Authority to grant permits for a limited period which is not to exceed four months without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 authorising the use of transport vehicle temporarily for the following purposes :"(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or(b) for the purposes of seasonal business, or(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit;"4. In the application which was filed by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to Rule 126(a)(vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicted for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was adressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on August 24, 1966. Even in that letter the purpose or the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned Single Judge and the division bench of the High Court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limini because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]3. These appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. The appellant held permanent permits for the routes in question. It had also applied for the grant of temporary permits under Section 62 of the Act.In the application which was filed by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to Rule 126(a)(vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicted for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was adressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on August 24, 1966. Even in that letter the purpose or the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned Single Judge and the division bench of the High Court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limini because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit.