LexR. SRIHARI NAIDU versus GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G R. SRIHARI NAIDU v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. February 6, 1985 (V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND V. KHALID, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 57 (2)-Permlts granted by Regional Transparl Authiirity invalidated on the ground of improper constitution of the RTA-:-RTA reconstituted-No Notification Issued for Inviting fresh applications-Grant of permits on the basis of applications recefved in pursuance of the tarli1r N1tificatfon -Whether in.a/id. An order granting two •tage carriage permits by the Regional Tran1p0rt Authority was set aside in appeal on the ground thattho R TA had not been properly constituted. Thereafter. the Regional Transport Authority, on its pro- per constitution, did not issue a fresh Notification u/s. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 inviting fresh applications but granted a stage carriage per- mit to the appellant on the basis of applications received in pursuance of the earlier Notification. On appeal by the aggrieved applicants the Appellate Authority set aside the said order and instead granted the permit to re1pondent No. 4. The appellant's revision application before the State Government having been failed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order of the State Government on the grounds, (i) that at the time when the earlier Noti- fication was issued u/s. 57(2), the delegation of power by the invalidly consti· tuted Authority to its Secretary to issue such Notification would be invalid and therefore the further proceedings adopted for consideration of such applications and graot of permits pursuant to such consideration was invalid; and (ii) that on merits the Appellate Authority ought not to have interfered with the five marks that had been granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority and reduced tbe same to three and further !that the Appellate Authority ought not to have-relied upon the only solitary adverse entry in the appe11ant's record to reject bis application while preferring that of respondent No. 4. The High Cotirt also dismissed the writ petition. The appellant advanced the same contentions before the Supreme Court, Dismi11ing the appeal, HELD : (I) The first contention is liable to ht rejected en three &rounds, namely, (i) It was not dioputed that applications under •· 57 (2) of the Act for the grant or stage carriage permits could be filed voluntarily and without any Notification being issued in that behalf. IC that be so, the question whether a ff fresh Notification invitini fresh appli~ations by the properly constituted Re~ional • • ' y 11.s. NAIDU v. GOVT. OF A.P. (Tulzapurkar, J.) 805 Transport Authority ought to have been issued or not or whether the properly A .. constituted Regional Transport Authority could proceed to act on the earlier Notification issued by the Secretary would be immaterial and· of no consequence • and the ultimate decision not to grant stage carriage permit to the appellant cannot be disturbed on this ground; (ii) The non-issuance .of a fresh Notification by the properly constituted Regional Transport Authority could, if at all, be made a ground of attack by those persons who were vnable to make ·applications because of such non-issuance and not by the appellant who had made an appli- 8 .... cation in that behalf and who took his chance to obtain the permit on the basi·s of his application which was in fact considered by the Regional Transport Autho- rity and thereafter by the Appellare Authority; and (iii) The initial order granting the permit to tbt appellant was passed by a properly constituted Regional Trans- port Authority and the appellate order was also passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was the properly constituted Appellate Authority and both these authorities had passed their orders on a consideration or the entire c material placed before each of them and after giving a fuJI hearing to the appeJlt1nt and as auch no failure of justice had occassioned. [807C·F; H; 808AJ "' (2) This Court will not be justified in interfering in tho matter on merits, since the High Court bas rightly taken ihe view, (i) that the second contention really pertained to tho merits of the claim of the appellant to the stage carriage D permit and it could not interfere with the finding of fact recorded against the appellant in that behalf In exercise of its extra·ordinary jurisdiQtion under Art. 226 of the Constitution; and (i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.