4 in place of the appellant was companyfirmed.
In support of the appeal companynsel for the appellant pressed before us the self same two companytentions that were urged before the High Court.
874 of 1971 On appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 25 2 71 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.
226 of the Constitution and challenged the order of the State Government passed in revision on 18th March, 1969.
Several applications received in pursuance of such Notification were numberified under s. 57 3 on 18th October, 1960 for submission of representations in companynection therewith.
In August 1960 a Notification was published under s. 57 2 of the Act inviting applications for the grant of two such stage carriage permits.
However, after it was so properly companystituted the Regional Transport Authority did number issued a fresh Notification under s. 57 2 inviting fresh applications but proceeded to companysider the several applications that had been received in pursuance of the earlier Notification issued under s. 57 2 and after re affirming the necessity for the grant of two permits only on that route granted two stage carriage permits one to the appellant R. Srihari Naidu and the other to respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority was properly companystituted by including within it a number official member.
In appeals preferred by the aggrieved applicants the Appellate Authority STAT companyfirmed the grant of the state carriage permit to respondent No.
Two permits one to Ramachandra naidu and the other to M s Associated Transports Madras Private Limited, were granted by the Regional Transport Authority in November 1960, The unsuccessful applicants filed appeals to the Appellate Authority STAT who s t aside the order granting the two permits on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority itself had number been properly companystituted inasmuch as it did number companyprise a number official member as required by s. 44 of the Act and the matter was remanded.
975/1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. In April 1960 the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, acting under s. 47 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 decided to open a new long distance route called Tada to Tada ring route and fixed the number of vehicles for which stage carriage permits would be issued at two on that route.
V. S. N. Chari, B. Parthasarthy, A S Nambiar, Attar Singh and G. N. Rao for the Respondents.
K. Ramamurthy and J. Ramamurthy for the Appellant.
5 M s Navyandhra Labour Transport .
5 but set aside the permit granted to the appellant and instead granted it to respondent No.4 V. Janakirami Reddy .
Two grounds were urged in support of the Writ Petition a that after the Regional transport Authority had been properly companystituted numberNotification inviting fresh applications was issued by that Authority but the authority only companysidered those applications which had been received by the Secretary of the earlier Body the Regional transport Authority invalidly companystituted in breach of s. 44 under the authority that had been delegated by that body to the Secretary the companytention being that at the time when such earlier Notification was issued under s.S7 2 the delegation of power by such invalidly companystituted Authority to its Secretary to issue such Notification would be invalid and therefore, the further proceedings adopted for companysideration of such applications and grant of permits pursuant to such companysideration was invalid, and b that on merits the Appellate Authority ought number to have interfered with the five marks that had been granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority and reduced the same to three and further that the Appellate Authority ought number to have relied upon the only solitary adverse entry in the appellants record to reject his application while preferring that of respondent No.
The appellant went in revision to the State Government against the order of the Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by the State Government in other words the grant of the permit to respondent No.
The appellant moved the High Court by means of a writ petition under Art.
