1998 (8) TMI 637 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the permission of the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is required before filing an application for a permit on a route covered by a scheme notified under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Whether the Transport Commissioner's power to extend a town service route more than 8 kilometers beyond the municipal or town limits is unlimited.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Permission of the Transport Commissioner:

The primary issue was whether the permission of the Transport Commissioner, as contemplated in Rule 258(2)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, must be obtained before filing an application for a permit on a route covered by a scheme notified under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court held that the permission must be obtained beforehand. Rule 258(2) mandates that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) determine town service routes subject to certain restrictions, including that no route should extend more than 8 kilometers beyond municipal limits unless specific permission from the Transport Commissioner is obtained. The court emphasized that if a scheme is in force for a particular route, the authority must adhere to the scheme's terms. Any applicant seeking a permit under the town service exception must first obtain the Transport Commissioner's permission if the route extends beyond 8 kilometers from the municipal limits. The court concluded that the RTA could only consider the permit application after such permission is granted, and thus, permission from the Transport Commissioner is a prerequisite.

2. Scope of the Transport Commissioner's Power:

The second issue was whether the Transport Commissioner's power to extend a town service route beyond 8 kilometers is unlimited. The court clarified that while Rule 258(2) does not explicitly limit the Transport Commissioner's power, it cannot be considered unlimited. The court noted that the power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, ensuring that the extension does not convert a town service route into a muffasal (rural) service route. The court referenced the principle that discretionary powers are often coupled with duties, and such powers must be exercised in good faith, considering all relevant factors and avoiding arbitrary decisions. The court cited previous rulings and legal principles to support this view, emphasizing that the Transport Commissioner's discretion must align with the legislative intent and the specific guidelines provided in the rules. The court also pointed out that the Transport Commissioner's permissions in the cases at hand had extended the routes significantly beyond the prescribed limits, indicating a failure to apply the relevant considerations.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the appeals were to be allowed, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and restoring the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, which had rejected the applications for permits. The court reiterated that the Transport Commissioner's power to extend town service routes must be exercised appropriately and within the guidelines provided, ensuring that town service routes do not transform into muffasal routes. There would be no order as to costs.