Hari Naidu vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Home (Transport-II) Department, Hyderabad and Others

Chinnappa Reddy, J.—The petitioner who is a Transport Operator with a permit to ply a vehicle on the route Chittoor-Arcot applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor for variation of the route. He wanted the route to commence from Kasiralla instead of Chittoor. Chittoor being en-route. This proposal for variation was notified in the usual manner and no representations were received by the Regional Transport Authority u/s 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Notwithstanding the fact that none objected to the variation, the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application without assigning any reasons. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner the State Transport Authority allowed the appeal and granted the variation. Thereupon the 3rd respondent who had made no representations either to the Regional Transport Authority or to the State Transport Authority preferred a Revision Petition to the Government of Andhra Pradesh u/s 64-A of the Act. The Government allowed the Revision Petition by G. O. Ms. No. 336 dated 29-2-1964 and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. In paragraph 2 of the G. O. it is expressly stated "the Government have examined the case with reference to the revision petition cited, the representation of the respondent and the connected records." It is clear that the Government was dealing with the revision petition preferred by the 3rd respondent and no exercising its powers suo motu.

The main argument of Mr. Sikhamani for the petitioners is that the Government should not have entertained the revision petition of the 3rd respondent as he did not prefer any representations either to the Regional Transport Authority or to the State Transport Authority. Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the Regional Transport Authority from considering any representation which is not in writing, which is not made before the prescribed date and of which a copy is not furnished to the applicant. Similarly. Section 64(f) confines the right of appeal granted by it to persons who have opposed the grant of a permit before the Regional Transport Authority, that is persons who have not made representations before the Regional Transport Authority are not given the right to prefer an appeal u/s 64 of the Act. If such is the scope of the enquiry by the Regional Transport Authority in the original proceeding and by the State Transport Authority in the proceeding in an appeal it is difficult to conceive how a revision petition can be maintained by a person who took no part in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority and before the State Transport Authority. Wide as the revisional powers are u/s 64-A they must be confined to the limits within which the Subordinate Authorities could deal with the matter. It is true as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the Government can always exercise its powers of revision suo motu. I have already stated that in the present case the Government has not purported to act suo motu on the other hand, it expressly declared that it was dealing with the revision petition of the 3rd respondent. I have no doubt that the Government was wrong in entertaining a revision at the instance of the 3rd respondent and that G. O. Ms. No. 336 dated 29-2-1964 should be quashed. Let a Writ issue accordingly The petitioner is entitled to his costs from the 3rd respondent. Advocate''s fee Rs. 150/-. The result of the issue of the writ is that the order of the State Transport Authority is restored.