JUDGMENT
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in WP No. 5365 of 1994 dated 28-9-2001 disposing of the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein with certain directions. The parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
2. The brief facts are as follows. The third respondent applied for grant of stage carriage permits on the new town service
route Tanuku Bus Stand to Brahmanacheruvu via Vaipuru, Kavalapuram, Tittiga, Rameswaram and Raameswaram Junction. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) rejected the application on the ground that the entire route of 21.6 Kms., is on the notified route and that grant of permit is prohibited under the scheme notified in G.O. Ms. No. 548 of 1978 dated 30-12-1978. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for brevity). The said appeal being AP No. 498 of 1992 was allowed on 21-5-1993 directing grant of permit to the third respondent subject Transport Commissioner granting permission under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘the Rules’ for brevity). Pursuant thereto, the Transport Commissioner, second respondent, by proceedings R.No. 33066/E4/93 dated 15-8-1993 rejected permission under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the rules. The third respondent again filed an appeal under Section 89 of the Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The same being AP No. 961 of 1993 was allowed by order dated 9-11-1993 directing the Secretary, RTA, West Godavari, to issue pucca stage carriage permit on the new town service route Tanuku Bus Stand to Brahmanacheruvu via Vaipuru, Kavalapuram. Tittiga, Rameswaram and Rameswaram Junction to the third respondent on the production of valid records by him. Pursuant thereto the third respondent was granted permit and the same was transferred to fourth respondent who has been statedly running the bus on the route from 28-8-1997.
3. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) impeached the order of the STAT dated 9-11-1993 in AP No. 961 of 1993 contending that the appeal under Section 89 of the Act against the order passed by the Transport Commissioner does not lie to the Tribunal, that the same would amounts to reviewing its earlier order and also amounts to granting of patta without
valid sanction from the Transport Commissioner and that the route in respect of which permit is granted overlaps the notified route which is prohibited under the said scheme. The learned single Judge followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in APSRTC v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, as well as the unreported judgment in WP No. 9649 of 1998 and batch dated 23-3-2001 and disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the fourth respondent (appellant herein) to make an application to the Transport Commissioner within a period of four weeks and the Commissioner was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks thereafter. The learned single Judge also directed to maintain status quo with regard to running of the vehicle subject to condition that the fourth respondent does not claim any equities and further subject to condition that the fourth respondent shall pay the tax payable for each quarter.
4. In this appeal Sri T.Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the appellant/ fourth respondent raised only one ground. He submits that the ratio in APSRTC Case (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case, in that, in the said case, the original orders of the STAT granting permission was challenged whereas in this case APSRTC has not challenged the order of STAT granting permission and the same shows that order of rejection by Transport Commissioner was only challenged. We are afraid we cannot agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant for reasons more than one.
5. It is not denied before us that when the third respondent’s appeal being AP No. 498 of 1992 was allowed by the STAT on 21-5-1993 no permit as such was directed to be granted to the appellant. The Tribunal only directed that subject to permission being granted under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules the third respondent would be entitled for
permit Thereafter, the Transport Commissioner rejected the permission by order dated 15-8-1993 in the following manner.
In pursuance of the above orders of the STAT the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Eluru sought permission required under Rule 258(2)(ii) of APMP Rules, 1989. In instant case the entire route of 21.6 Kms. Overlaps the notified route. It extends 19 Kms., beyond Municipal limits. The route is more of mofussil in nature than town service route and is being well serviced. As such no, apparent need warrants to accord specific permission. Hence, the permission sought for under Rule 258(2)(n) of APMV Rules is hereby rejected.
6. The order of the Commissioner was subject matter of appeal in AP No. 961 of 1993. The Tribunal very curiously directed the Secretary, RTA, West Godavari to issue pucca stage carriage permit ignoring the effect of Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules. In APSRTC Case (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with similar cases. Rule 258(2)(ii) provides that specific permission of the Transport Commissioner has to be obtained if a town service extends more than eight (8) kilometres beyond the limits of municipality or town from which it starts. Therefore, no authority under the Act is entitled to direct issue of pucca stage carriage permit without compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Rules. In APSRTC Case the Supreme Court held as under:
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 kilometers 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 Kilometers beyond the limits of the municipality or town, 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 out answer to the first question is that the permission of the Transport Commissioner contemplated in Rule 258(2)(ii) 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.
Further, it was observed:
The grant of permit in these cases is by the Tribunal before the grant of permission by the Transport Commissioner. The Tribunal itself directed issue of permit by the Secretary to the RTA. after receipt of record evidencing Transport Commissioner’s permission. The actual issue of permit was only a ministerial act and it cannot be equated to the grant of permit. The Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in granting permits in all these cases.
7. In our considered view the ratio laid down in APSRTC case (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of this case and the order of the learned single Judge is unassailable. The learned single Judge also directed to maintain status quo with regard to running of vehicle subject to the appellant paying the Motor Vehicles Tax due upto 31-12-2001. The APSRTC has not filed any appeal aggrieved by this order. Therefore, we do not intend to touch that portion of the order. Subject to the appellant paying quarterly tax beyond 31-12-2001 during the pendency of the application of the appellant before the Transport Commissioner status quo may be maintained with regard to running of the vehicle.
8. In the result, subject to above observations, the writ appeals fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.