A.P.S.R.T.C versus REG. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ANANTHAPUR & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 09-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009) 1 S.C.R. 1068 
A 
A.P.S.R.T.C. 
v. 
REG. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ANANTHAPUR &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 812-814 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 9, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
~ -
ANDHRA PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 
c 1989: 
r.258(2)(ii) - Grant of stage carriage permit for a town 
service route - HELD: Order of single Judge o{ High Court 
remitting the matter to State Transport Appellate Tribunal to 
D consider the application afresh on the issue as to whether the 
proposed route is a new route or an existing one, affirmed. 
.. -
In a writ petition arising out of an application for grant 
of stage carriage permit on a specific town service route, 
the question for consideration was as to whether the 
E proposed route was a new route or an existing one. The 
single Judge remitted the matter to the State Transport 
Appellate Tribunal for consideration afresh, but on a writ 
appeal having been filed by respondent no. 2/applicant, 
the Division Bench held in favour of the applicant. 
:•. 
F Aggrieved, the APSRTC filed the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The conclusions of the Division Bench of the 
G 
High Court are quite abrupt. As a matter of fact, keeping 
in view the factual position, single Judge has remanded 
the matter to the STAT for consideration afresh. That 
being so, the Division Bench ought not to have interfered 
'lo~ 
in the matter. The judgment of the Division Bench of the 
High Court is set aside and that of the single Judge 
H 
1068 
A.P.S.R.T.C. v. REG. TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 
1069 
ANANTHAPUR & ANR. 
-'( 
restored. [Para 7 and 8] [1072-C-E] 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 812-
814 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2005 of the High 
B 
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in writ 
Appeal Nos. 2072-2073 of 2004. 
~ ,,_ 
R. Santhan Krishnan, Radha Rani, P. Vijaya Kumar and 
D. Mahesh Babu for the Appellant. 
l.Venkatanarayanan, Debojit Barokakori, Altaf Fatima, D. c 
Bharathi Reddy, T.N. Rao, Manjeet Kispal and Miten Mahapatra 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the Writ 
Appeals filed by the respondent No.2. Three Writ Appeals were 
E 
disposed of by a common order. All the three Writ Appeals 
were filed by the respondent No.2. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Challenge in these Writ Appeals was to the order passed 
F 
by learned Single Judge on 1st December, 2004 in 
W.P.No.3836 of 2004 and batch. Learned single Judge allowed 
the writ petitions and set aside the order of the State Transport 
Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'STAT') passed 
in A.P.No.424 of 2003 dated 10-2-2004 granting one pucca G 
stage permit on the town service route Hindupur Municipal bus 
-~ 
Stand to Kothapalli via Mothukapalli, Seva Mandir, Kodigapalli, 
Parigi, Dharmapur, Seerepalli and Mudireddipalli in favour of 
the respondent no.2 herein. After setting aside the said order, 
learned single Judge remitted back the appeal to the appellate 
H 
1070 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal. Facts in brief, as 
have been stated, are that respondent no.2 applied for two 
pucca stage carriage permits on town service route Hindupur 
Municipal bus Stand to Kothapalli via Mothukapalli, Seva 
Mandir, Kodigapalli, Parigi, Dharmapur, Seerepalli and 
B Mudireddipalli to perform 12 single trips each per day with night 
halts at Hindupur Municipal Bus Stand and Kothapalli. The 
application was opposed and by proceedings of the Regional 
Transport Authority(hereinafter referred to as the 'RT A'}, 
Anantapur, dated June, 2003, the application was rejected on 
c the ground that the prcposed town service route is a new route 
and Government alone has to formulate the route for applying 
stage carriage permits under the provisions of Section 
68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act") 
and permission of the Transport Commissioner had not been 
0 obtained by the respondent no.2 under Rule 258 (2)(ii) of the 
AP. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules") for the 
proposed route. After rejection of the application, respondent 
no.2 preferred an appeal before the ST AT which on 10th 
Febnruary, 2004 allowed the appeal. The appellate Tribunal 
took notice of the fact tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.