ORDER
1. The State Transport
undertaking is the petitioner who assails the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 8-1-1996 passed in AS No.650/93 according a permit to the 3rd respondent in respect of the alleged town service route between Kothagudem PO and Kotha Palvancha. The facts relevant for the determination of the issue, briefly are as under:
The 3rd respondent filed an application for pucca permit for the town service route referred to above, before the RTA, Khammam. The facts established from the record of the case are that the route in question is of a total length of 12.5 km., of which 2 km., is within the Municipal limits and 10.5 km., beyond the Municipal limits. The RTA having declined to grant permit, the 3rd respondent approached the R1 Tribunal, which passed the impugned order granting permit. Hence
the State Transport undertaking is before this Court.
2. Sri Earanath learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the permit granted by the Tribunal, impugned in this writ petition, is in respect of route which overlaps the notified route which is covered by G.O. No.1006 dated 2-11-1987 and is thus contrary to the said notified route and in the circumstances the permission of the Tribunal is invalid. The second submission made by the learned Counsel is that according to the statutory environment covered by Rule 258 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the Rules’) the intending operator has to make an application to the concerned Transport Commissioner wherever the length of the route extends beyond 8 km., from the Municipal limits and since that is the undisputed factual position in the matter on hand, the 3rd respondent could not have straight away approached the concerned RTA bypassing the statutory requirement of first approaching the Transport Commissioner, obtaining his permission and thereupon approaching the RTA for permit. In the circumstances, learned Counsel submits, the RTA has rightly declined to accord the permit and the Tribunal in subversion and violation of the statutory regime passed the impugned orders which are ultra vires. Rule 258, to the extent relevant to the case on hand, reads as under:
“258. Fixation of stages for stage carriages:
(1) In the case of stage carriages, the Regional Transport Authority shall, after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix stages on all bus routes except where town services are plying. The maximum distance of each stage shall not ordinarily exceed 6.4 kilometres. When stages are so fixed, fares shall be collected according to stages.
…… …… ……
(2) The Regional Transport Authority shall, subject to the following-restrictions, determine which are town service routes:
…… …… ……
(ii) No route of town service shall extend more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts, provided that this restriction shall not apply to any town service routes, which were in existence on the date of coming of these rules into force or in respect of those routes for which specific permission of the Transport Commissioner is obtained.
…… …… ……
It is ipssisinia verba to the provision occurring in Rule 282 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964.
3. In APSRTC v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (4) Scale 445, considering the said statutory phrageology (1964 Rules) the Supreme Court held-
“10. Bearing that in mind we have to construe Rule 258(2) in the light of Sections 98 to 100 and 104 of the Act. Section 98 provides that the provisions of Chapter VI and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have overriding effect against anything inconsistent in Chapter V or any other law for the time being in force. Section 99 deals with preparation and publication of proposals regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking. Section 100 deals with publication of proposals and a notification of the scheme after consideration of the objections to the proposal. Section 104 as stated earlier, prohibits the grant of any permit except
in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. Hence for the purpose of Rule 258(2), if there is a scheme in force with reference to the concerned route, the authority has to adhere to the terms of the scheme. If there is an absolute bar in the scheme against the grant of any permit for the notified route or any portion of the route nothing further could be done. On the other hand if there is any exception provided in the scheme the applicant for a permit has to satisfy the authority concerned that he would fall within the scope of the exception. When the scheme provides an exception for the holder of stage carriage permit in respect of town service any applicant for permit claiming (he benefit thereof has to necessarily satisfy the Regional Transport Authority that the route for which the permit is sought is a town service route, in order to establish the same the applicant for permit has to approach the Transport Commissioner in the first instance if the route for which permit is sought extends more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the municipality or town from which it starts. In such cases, it is only when the Transport Commissioner grants specific permission for extension of the route for more than 8 kilometres beyond the limits of the Municipality or to\vn, the Regional Transport Authority can consider the application for grant of permit and proceed to pass orders. It is only on the basis of the Transport Commissioner’s permission the Regional Transport Authority can determine the town service routes. Hence our answer to the first question is that the permission of the Transport contemplated in Rule 258(2) of the rules has to be obtained before an application for permit is filed for a route covered by a scheme notified under the Act.”
4. In the light of the statutory position coupled with the interpretation thereon put
by the Supreme Court, the conclusion is irresistable that no operator is entitled to directly approach the RTA for a permit without routing the same through the Transport Commissioner by making an application in the behalf for the purpose of obtaining a permission wherever the application for town service route extends 8 kins., beyond Municipal limits. Non-compliance of this provision would render the application non est in the eye of law and no decision could be taken by the RTA thereupon. Equally the STAT would be disentitled to exercise its powers in the circumstances where the operator has not approached the Transport Commissioner for permission. In the undisputed facts on record, the 3rd respondent not having approached the Transport Commissioner for permission, the route being 8 Kms., beyond the Municipal limits, there was no application in the eye of law that could have been considered by the RTA and there is no instrument that the Tribunal could exercise its adjudicatory powers upon. The decision of the R1-Tribunal contained in the impugned proceedings is thus vitiated by patent error of law and exercise of jurisdiction and accordingly non est and inoperable. It is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed, in the circumstances without costs.