ANDHRA PRADESH S R T C Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
LAWS(SC)-1998-8-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on August 11,1998

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SRINIVASAN, - (1.) LEAVE granted. The common questions which arise for decision in these cases depend on the interpretation of Rule 258 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the 'Rules') which is in the following terms :- "RULE 258 :- FIXATION OF STAGES FOR CARRIAGES : 1. In the case of stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority shall, after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix stages on all bus routes except town service. The maximum distance of each stage shall not ordinarily exceed 6.4 kilometres when stages are so fixed, fares shall be collected according to stages. Explanation :- When a passenger gets into or gets down from a stage carriage at a place lying in between two stages, he shall pay the fare from the stage preceding the place where he gets into the bus to the stage succeeding the place where he gets down.
(2.) THE Regional Transport Authority shall, subject to the following restrictions, determine which are town service routes. (i) at least one terminus of every town service shall lie within the limits of a municipality or any build up place notified in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette as 'town' for this purpose by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, with the prior concurrence of the State Transport Authority. (ii) No route of town service shall extend more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the Municipality or town from which it starts, provide that this restriction shall not apply to any town service routes, which were in existence on the date of coming of these rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific permission of the transport Commissioner is obtained. (iii) No route shall be determined as both town and muffasal service routes". 2. THE Government of Andhra Pradesh notified in GOMS No. 695, Transport, Roads a Buildings (P-IV), 20/09/1988 a scheme published by the appellant in these cases relating to the route Chilukuru to Gutlapadu. Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') prohibits the grant of any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. THE scheme sets out five exceptions and they are :- 1. THE State Transport Undertakings; 2. THE holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town services; 3.THE holders of stage carriage permits in respect of inter-State routes overlapping on the notified route; 4.THE holders of statge carriage permits in respect of such route or routes overlapping not more than 8 kms. on the notified route; and 5.THE services operated by Devasthanams. The third respondent in S.L.P.(C) No. 21474/97 filed an application for grant of pucca stage carriage permit to ply his buses on the route Bhimavaram old bus stand to Losari. The total length of the said route was 19.2 Kms. comprising 4.3 Kms. within the municipal limits of Bhimavaram and 14.9 Kms. beyond the municipal limits with an overlapping of 12.3 Kms. on the notified route under the scheme. The Regional Transport Authority rejected it on the ground that the overlapping exceeded 8 Kms. On appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that the route applied for was a town service route falling under the second exception set out in the scheme. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the permit to the third respondent on condition that the Transport Commissioner granted permission as contemplated in Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules. The Tribunal directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to issue permit on production of permission of the Transport Commissioner. The Tribunal's order was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 19258 of 1994 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant that the permission of the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) was a condition precedent for filing an application for route permit when there was a scheme governing the route. The High Court also held that the power of Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2) (ii) was unlimited. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. Following that judgment, the writ petitions filed by the appellant against the grants in the other cases were dismissed.
(3.) THOUGH it is not necessary to set out the facts in each case as they are similar, it will be very useful to reproduce the tabular statement furnished by learned counsel for the appellant containing the particulars of the route, total distance, extension beyond municipal limits and the extent of overlapping in each case. JUDGEMENT_353_7_1998Html1.htm (i) Whether the permission of the Transport Commissioner contemplated in Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules should be obtained before an application for permit is filed for a route covered by a scheme notified under the Act? (ii) Whether the Transport Commissioner's power to extend a town service route more than 8 kms. beyond the limits of the Municipality or town is unlimited? Rule 258 uses the expression "town service". Sub-rule (1) enjoins the Regional Transport Authority to fix stages on all bus routes except town service after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable. Sub-rule (2) directs the Regional Transport Authority to determine which are town service routes subject to the restrictions mentioned therein. There are three restrictions set out in the sub-rule. (a) At least one terminus of every town service shall lie within the municipal limits or any built up place notified in the State Gazette as "town" for the purpose of the rule by the said authority with the prior concurrence of the State Transport Authority. (b) The route of town service shall not extend more then 8 kilometres beyond the municipal limits or town limits but such restriction shall not apply to town service routes which already existed on the date of coming into force of the rules or in respect of which routes specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is obtained. (c) No route shall be determined as both town and muffasal service routes. The expression "town service" has not been used in any other rule or any provision in the Act. The expression has not been defined anywhere. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.