Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Y. Babji vs T. Khadgadera Rao And Others on 10 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD29, 2000(1)ALT1
ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, CJ
1. The brief facts in order to dispose of this writ appeal run thus:
The 1st respondent (hereinafter called as "the petitioner") applied for grant of a pacca stage carriage permit as far back as in 1991. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority which was allowed and permit was granted vide order dated 9-4-1991. The Secretary, RTA vide memo dated 22-4-1991 directed the petitioner to produce the records of the vehicle to issue the permit under Rule 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as "the Rules"). It will be expedient to notice at this stage Rule 192 in verbatim which runs thus:
"192. Issue of permits - Production of records :--(1) No permit shall be issued until the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered (herein and the applicant has produced the registration certificate together with valid fitness and insurance certificates and evidence of payment of tax under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963, relating to the vehicle.
(2) When an applicant is granted a permit but is unable to produce the records referred to in sub-rule (1), immediately, the transport authority, the appellate authority, or the Government acting under Section 90, as the case may be, shall grant him four months time reckoned from the date of receipt by the applicant of the order granting the permit, to produce the records of the vehicle before the transport authority which has to issue the permit. In cases where the order granting the permit is stayed on appeal or revision and the stay is subsequently vacated, the time for production of the records shall be calculated from the date of receipt by the grantee of the order confirming the grant in his favour :
Provided that the Transport Authority, the appellate authority or the Government, as the case may be, may if satisfied, on an application made to it in writing by the grantee within a period of four months mentioned above, that there is different ground grant an extension of the time for a further period not exceeding four months.
(3) The acquisition of a vehicle in pursuance of an order sanctioning a permit shall be at the sole risk of the applicant as the order sanctioning the permit may be reserved an appeal or revision under the Act and Rules made thereunder and such acquisition shall not be deemed to be appointed in favour of the applicant while disposing of any appeal or revision application.
(4) If an applicant fails to produce the records within the time fixed in sub-rule (3) above, the Transport Authority, the appellate authority or the Government as the case may be, shall revoke the sanction."
2. No records were produced within the time stipulated under Rule 192 of the Rules till 22-8-1991. No application for extension of time was made within the time stipulated. The application for issuance of permit was rejected on 22-4-1992 by the Secretary, RTA., inter alia holding that Rule 192 of the Rules has been violated as the period of limitation for issuance of permit had expired. An application for extension of time to produce the record was made to the State Transport Apellate Authority and the same was dismissed. The order declining extension of time by the State Transport Appellate Authority was challenged in a writ petition. By an interim order dated 9-10-1992, the respondent-authority was directed to grant the permit. Thus in ground reality the petitioner is running the vehicle under validly granted and issued permit till date. At this stage it may be noticed that the appellant was impleaded as a party to the writ petition under the orders of the Court - being an existing permanent permit holder with respect to part of the route. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 22-4-1992 and directed the respondent-authority to issue the permit vide order dated 6-7-1999 which is impugned in this writ appeal.
3. The sole grievance made by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this writ appeal is that the learned single Judge could not have set aside the finding of the Secretary, RTA; that there is no satisfactory explanation for not producing the records for issuance of permit as envisaged by Rule 192 of the Rules; no application for extension of time was made within the stipulated period of four months; there is no records produced before the Court showing the sufficient cause for not producing the records within the time stipulated; the writ petition suffers from suppression of facts as the issuance of notice to produce the record by the Secretary, RTA was neither brought to the notice of the appellate authority nor to the learned single Judge in the writ petition; and satisfaction with respect to extension of time is required to be of the authorities who came to the conclusion that mere is no satisfactory explanation for extension of time and it is a finding of fact which need not be interfered within the writ petition. It is further contended that Section 72 read with Sections 80 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as provided in Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provide for the procedure for grant of permit.
4. There is no provision for issuance of the permit except provided by the Rules and that the issuance of permit will be on compliance with the condition of production of the vehicle and the records which are sine qua non. Consequently, violation of Rule 192 of the Rules debars the authorities from issuing permit to the petitioner as granted to him.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State contend that the petitioner is a permit holder and the existing permit holders have got no locus standi to question the issuance of permit to the petitioner and under the liberalised scheme of permits the petitioner is entitled for grant of permit and the issuance of permits is on the mere asking. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, , and Secretary, RTA, Guntur v. E. Rama Rao, AIR 1992 AP 11, in order to support his submissions.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record. A reading of Sections 72, 80 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, leads to a categorical inference that grant of permit has been liberalised and anybody who is entitled to the permit can apply for the same as long as the route is not nationalised or there is some scheme relating to the route. Concedingly there is no scheme relating to the route nor is it nationalised nor there is any restriction on the route envisaged either by the Act or the Rules or scheme or policy of the State. There is no gain-saying that the appellant is entitled to a permit even if it is assumed that issuance of permit to the petitioner is invalid. The petitioner would be entitled to apply afresh for grant of permit and in the ordinary course the State is bound to grant the permit.
7. In our considered view, Rule 192 of the Rules is a wholesome Rule and in the interest of public once a permit is granted the person may not keep the permit with him without providing the facility to the public for whose benefit the permits are granted to the vehicles and for that purpose a reasonable period of limitation has been provided for issuance of the permit. We may hasten to add at the same time that it cannot be held that Rule 192 is mandatory and the State Authorities are debarred from issuing permit beyond the statutory period provided to comply with the condition of the production of valid records. Without expressing any opinion with respect to the mandatory or directive nature of the Rule we are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case it will be a futile exercise to determine the question whether Rule 192 of the Rules is mandatory and what is the consequence of its non-compliance inasmuch as the petitioner having been granted a permit and the same having been issued, though under the orders of the Court, has been operating on the route since 1992, and seven years have gone by. Cancellation of the permit at this stage would be against the public interest specially when the appellant does not suffer any substantial injustice. In view of the revised policy under the Motor Vehicles Act to grant permit to as many number of persons who apply to facilitate the public as observed in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India (supra), it would be a mere ritual to set aside the impugned order under appeal and permit the petitioner to apply afresh for grant of permit and to issue the same in compliance with Rule 192 of the Rules. Since in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the appeal does not call for any interference in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge doing substantial justice, we keep all the questions raised by the appellant open to be decided in appropriate case.
8. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.