THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26351 of 2014 Dated: 08.10.2014 Between:
Sri Syed Mehraj Ahmed .. Petitioner and The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.A.K. Mynoddin Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.3: AGP for Transport The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate, vide proceedings No.01/359(1)/2011-RM-NLG dated 26.08.2014, and not cancelling the agreement and covered permit of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP24 TA 2118 under Rule 214 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, are that the above-mentioned vehicle was owned by one Sri Ramesh Kumar Srinivasula of Kodad, Nalgonda District. The said vehicle was given on hire to the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. Evidently, the said bus was purchased under hire purchase from respondent No.4. For non-payment of the loan amount, respondent No.4 has seized the vehicle and sold the same to the petitioner in auction. After purchase of the vehicle, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 with a request for issue of No Objection Certificate for registration of the vehicle in his name. Respondent No.2 has issued endorsement dated 26.08.2014, wherein he has informed the petitioner that No Objection Certificate can be issued only to hire bus owner, who is having hire bus agreement with the Corporation, on receipt of written requisition from him and after payment of penalties, if any. Feeling aggrieved by this communication, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
At the hearing, Mr. S.A.K. Mynoddin, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has arbitrarily refused to issue No Objection Certificate. He has relied upon the provisions of Sections 48 and 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to issuance of No Objection Certificate by the A.P.S.R.T.C.
On a careful perusal of both the above-mentioned provisions, I am of the opinion that a public transport corporation such as A.P.S.R.T.C. does not figure in the scheme of both these provisions and the said provisions envisage No Objection Certificate by the registering authority in respect of the bus, in case of interstate transfer of the vehicle, to enable the registering authority of the other State to make a fresh registration.
In the absence of any statutory obligation on the A.P.S.R.T.C. and any privity of contract between it and the petitioner, no Mandamus can be issued to the latter to issue the so-called No Objection Certificate to enable the petitioner to get the vehicle registered afresh in his name.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is wholly without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32967 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th October, 2014 IBL