A.P.S.R.T.C ETC. ETC versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

A.P.S.R.T.C ETC. ETC versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Permission from the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) is a necessary condition before applying for permits on routes covered by a scheme notified under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; such permission must not convert town service routes into muffasal service routes nor defeat scheme objectives. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in granting permits prior to such permission.

Parties
Appellant: A.P.S.R.T.C.; Respondent: State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.; Respondent in S.l.p. (c) No. 1623/98: Ms. K. Amreshwari, Ms. N. Annapoorani, K. Ram Kumar, S. Srinivasan, Partaparai Durlabhji
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders of High Court and State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside; orders of Regional Transport Authority rejecting permit applications restored.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of 'town Service' in Motor Vehicles Rules, Powers and Duties of Transport Commissioner, Permit Grant Procedure, Notified Scheme Exception
Administrative Law Motor Vehicles Law Transport Law Interpretation of 'town Service' in Motor Vehicles Rules Powers and Duties of Transport Commissioner Permit Grant Procedure Notified Scheme Exception

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.P.S.R.T.C.

Appellant

State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

Respondent

Ms. K. Amreshwari, Ms. N. Annapoorani, K. Ram Kumar, S. Srinivasan, Partaparai Durlabhji

Respondent in S.l.p. (c) No. 1623/98

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission of the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is a condition precedent for applying for a permit for a route covered by a notified scheme under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Transport Commissioner's power to extend a town service route more than 8 kilometres beyond municipal/town limits is unlimited

Ratio Decidendi

Permission from the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) is a necessary condition before applying for permits on routes covered by a scheme notified under Section 100(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; such permission must not convert town service routes into muffasal service routes nor defeat scheme objectives. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in granting permits prior to such permission.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders of High Court and State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside; orders of Regional Transport Authority rejecting permit applications restored.

Orders

  • Orders of the High Court and State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside.
  • Orders of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting applications restored.