Writ Petition No. 20822 of 2003 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 102(2)
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20822 OF 2003
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed against the order dated 20.07.1999 in Revision Petition No.44 of 1995 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is running a transport vehicle under the Stage Carriage Permit granted by the 2nd respondent. During the year 1990 and 1991 pursuant to the nationalisation of routes G.O.Ms.No.196, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.-IV), dated
28.06.1990; G.O.Ms.No.124, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.-IV), dated 23.02.1991; and G.O.Ms.No.147, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Tr.-IV), dated 23.02.1991 were issued approving certain schemes under Section 102 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Subsequently by notice dated 19.5.1995 the petitioner herein was called upon to surrender his permit to mark the curtailed portions of the route. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.44 of 1995 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad contending that the impugned curtailment was illegal and contrary to law. The Tribunal below by order dated 20.7.1999 allowed the Revision Petition in part holding that curtailment of route to a distance of 6 kms from Kammadanam to Shadnagar was concerned was illegal and contrary to law as there was no overlapping of the notified routes. However, the other two curtailments were upheld.
The said order dated 20.7.1999 has been challenged in this writ petition contending that since certain portions of the route specified in the petitioner’s permit were already curtailed on 19.7.1994, the Tribunal below ought to have set aside all the three impugned curtailments. On a careful consideration of the material on record, I do not find any substance in the said contention. At the outset, it is to be noted that the plea of the petitioner that the specified route in his permit was already curtailed in the year 1994 was found to be factually incorrect by the Tribunal. After verification of the relevant records, the Tribunal below observed that the original route permit given to the petitioner herein was varied in the year 1994 including some more villages while keeping both the terminal points in the original permit in tact. It was also found by the Tribunal that the said variation was by overlooking the schemes in existence to escape the rigour of nationalization.
Operative part
The Tribunal having perused the original permit as well as the permit after variation observed that there were certain intentional omissions by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector with ulterior motives. Thus, it was concluded by the tribunal that the route of the petitioner to the extent of overlappings is liable to be curtailed and accordingly upheld the other two curtailments in the petitioner’s permit. The said finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal below on appreciation of several details available on record and after verification of all the sketches of the routes in question warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. Dt. 01.12.2008 ___________ G. ROHINI, J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 102(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.