A ANNAMALAI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS
LAWS(APH)-1955-8-27
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 10,1955

A.ANNAMALAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADRAS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EX PARTE MECARTHY [REFERRED TO]
VISAKHAPATNAM MOTOR TRANSPORT V. BANGARU RAJU [FOLLOWED ON]
UNION OF WORKMEN OF R.S.N. AND I.C.N.RLY. CO. LTD. V. RIVER STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD. [DISTINGUISHED]
VENKATESWARULU V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
LALA RAJ KISHORE VS. DISTRICT BOARD OF SEHARANPUR [REFERRED TO]
CHAMBA VALLEY TRANSPORT LTD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SABITRI MOTOR SERVICE LTD VS. ASANSOL BUS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
HARIPADA DUTTA VS. ANANTA MANDAL [REFERRED TO]
O A O A M MUTHIAH CHETTIAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
M KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVA IYER VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
A VEDACHALA MUDALIAR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
GANGALAKURTHI PATTISAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAO BAHADUR A. NATHAMOONI CHETTI VS. M.R. VISWANATHA SASTRY [REFERRED TO]





JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor regarding the route Ghittoor to Nagari, passed at its meeting held on 5th April, 1951 at Madanapalle; the order of the Central Road Traffic Board in R. No. 18268- A2-51 dated 11th July, 1951 and the order of the Government in G.O.Rt. No. 2763 dated 4th October, 1951 and quash the said G.O and the orders passed by the Regitional Transport Authority and Central Road Traffic Board. The case of the petitioner was that the Regional Transport Authority Chittoor, by its notification R.No. 654-61-49 dated 4th June, 1949, called for applications for the route Chittoor to Nagari and that one N.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu put in an application in the name of Chittoor Express Service, of which he was the sole proprietor. The Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, at its meeting held on 12th September, 1950, granted the permit for the said route to Chittoor Express Service. But, on appeal, the Central Road Traffic Board set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Fresh applications were called for by the Regional Transport Authority under section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by its notification R.No. 9984-A2-50 dated 29th November, 1950. No fresh application was made by N.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu.
(2.)The petitioner however applied for a permit after applications were called for by the notification dated 29th November, 1950. When the matter came up before the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 5th April, 1951, one permit was granted to Chittoor Express Service, of which Neerajhakshmi Naidu became the proprietor by reason of a transfer effected by Chengalvaraya Naidu before 5th April, 1951. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was a new entrant. The permit was granted to Chittoor Express Service in the following words :-
"No. 7 was granted the route by this Regional Transport Authority at the last meeting. He has two buses remaining idle now on routes temporarily, one of the buses ran for six months between Madras and Chittoor and the other between Chittoor and Kalahasti for 18 months. By the cancellation of the permit he has been hard hit. He has also been applying for a route for long. Even at the last meeting of the Regional Transport Authority his claims for a route were considered but was deferred to complete the quota of three buses to others. Hence he is considered to have the best claim for a route and he is given one bus."

(3.)On appeal, the claim of the petitioner herein was dismissed on the same ground, viz; that he was a new entrant. The claim of the fourth respondent herein, i.e., Chitoor Express Service was confirmed on the ground that he had three buses and that he also operated on this route on a temporary permit. A Revision Petition was filed to the Government of Madras and it was rejected on 4th October, 1951, in the following words :- "The Government see no reason to interfere."
;


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