Decided on November 20,1992



- (1.)At the time of final hearing of the miscellaneous petition (W.A.M.P. No.2270 of 1992), all the learned Advocates for the parties agreed that the hearing of the miscellaneous petition may be treated as final hearing of the main writ appeal. Accordingly, we have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties on the merits of the writ appeal itself and the same will be disposed of by this judgment.
(2.)A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be stated at the outset. The first respondent is the original writ petitioner while the original respondents 3 to 6 are the appellants in Writ Appeal No.1306 of 1992, and the Regional Transport Authority, the original respondent No. 1 in the writ petition, is the second respondent in the appeal. Hereafter, we shall refer to the respective parties as original writ petitioner and the concerned original respondents in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.
(3.)The original writ petitioner is a Transport Operator. He sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 1-7-1992 of the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, the original 1st respondent, rejecting the application of the original writ petitioner for the grant of variation of the route seeking extension of the existing town service route of Guntur-Nallapadu leading to Perecherla junction, as illegal and void. The original writ petitioner was holding the existing town service permit for the route covering 7 Kms. from Guntur to Nallapadu. The said permit was granted to the original writ petitioner on 19-6-1990 and the variation sought for was for further 5 Kms. route beyond Nallapadu upto Perecherla making the total distance to 12 Kms. from the starting point at Guntur. The said request of the original writ petitioner was negatived by the Authority on the ground that, even though the original sanctioned route is 7 Kms. by clubbing the distance in the variation sought, the total route becomes 12 Kms. and that the same is hit by the Scheme framed under G.O.Ms.No.363, Transport, Roads and Buildings, (Transport-IV) Department, dated 30th May, 1991, and as such, the variation could not be granted. Before the first respondent-Authority, objections were filed by the impleaded respondents 3 to 6 to the effect that the writ petitioner could not be granted such variation on the route sought for, in view of not only G .O.Ms.No.363, but also earlier G.Os., bearing G.O.Ms.Nos.317 and 318 containing similar schemes covering the route in question. Both the aforesaid G.Os., were issued on the same date, viz., 28-6-1990. It may be mentioned at this stage that the original writ petitioner was granted pucca permit for the town service route from Guntur to Nallapadu on 19-6-1990. Hence, even on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.317 and 318, the original writ petitioner was holding the pucca permit for the town service operating on the notified route. It is in the background of these facts that the original writ petitioner moved this Court for the aforesaid relief.

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