AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.V.N. Sastri, J.—These six writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as a common question relating to the grant of stage carriage permits in respect of the self-same route i.e., on the town service route-Bhimavaram New Bus-Stand to Kalavapudi is involved in all of them. The first two writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 17467 and 17479 of 1993 are filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. questioning the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, granting permits to the third respondent in each of the said writ petitions subject to the grant of permission by the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258 (2) (ii) of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989.
W.P. Nos. 1626 and 1657 of 1994 are also filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. questioning the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permission under the said rule after setting aside the order of the Transport Commissioner refusing permission. W.P. Nos. 17888 and 17889 of 1993 are filed by two persons claiming to be the Secretary and President of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Union, Bhimavaram Depot and Transport Mazdoor Sangh (A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees), Bhimavaram, respectively questioning the selfsame orders of the STAT which are assailed in Writ Petition Nos. 1626 and 1657 of 1994.
The main question for consideration in all these six cases is whether the grant of permits on the aforesaid route is prohibited by the approved scheme notified in G.O.Ms. No. 497, dated 20-9-1988.
The R.T.A., West Godavari, Eluru, by its order dated 8-2-1992 rejected the applications for grant of permits filed by the two applicants, namely, the third respondent in each case on the ground that the approved scheme prohibits overlapping of more than 8 K.Ms. on the notified route. The appellate authority i.e., the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 14-7-1993, however, held that the approved scheme exempts the holders of stage carriage permits on town service routes and as such there is no prohibition for the grant of the permits sought for and accordingly ordered the grant of permits subject to the grant of permission by the Transport Commissioner under Rule 258 (2) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short ''the Rules'').
The Transport Commissioner, however, by his proceedings dated 14-9-1993 refused permission on the ground that the distance of the route is 25 K.ms. and the route is extending to 22.5 K.ms. beyond municipal limits and the entire route also overlaps the notified route. The Transport Commissioner further held that the route is more in the nature of a muffasal-service route than a town-service route and the entire sector is served by the notified routes and as such no apparent need arises to classify the route as town-service route to give specific permission under Rule 258 (2) (ii). Questioning the said order of the Transport Commissioner refusing permission, appeals were, once again, filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which, by its order dated 16-10-1993, allowed the appeals and granted Permission. Pursuant to the said orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the grantees are running their vehicles from 2-11-1993. Hence the present batch of writ petitions.
Sri C.V. Ramulu and Sri J. Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners have submitted that these cases are squarely governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in C. Kasturi and others, etc. Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and another etc., and also the judgment rendered by me in Writ Petitions Nos.26535 and 26542 of 1995 dated 7-10-1996 1997 (1) An.W.R. 328 (A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S.T.A.T.) and accordingly all the writ petitions have to be allowed.
Sri T. Venkataramana, the learned counsel appearing for the grantees, however, sought to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in C. Kasturi v. Secretary Regional Transport Authority (supra). He also submitted that my judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 26535 and 26542 of 1995 requires reconsideration in view of two judgments delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1361 of 1995 dated 27-11-1995 which is reported in Rajappa Kawati Vs. G. Hanumantha Rao and Others, and W.P. No. 1326 of 1992 dt. 27-2-1997. It is the contention of Mr. T. Venkataramana that the approved scheme notified in G.O.Ms. No. 497 totally exempts the holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town services and as such the grant of permits is not prohibited and the impugned orders do not call for any interference. In support of his contentions regarding the interpretation of the approved scheme, the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the judgment in W.P. No. 678 of 1978 dated 7-4-1978 and the judgment in W.P. No. 16923 of 1988 dated 3-10-1989. Sri Venkataramana has further contended that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 17888 of 1993 and 17889 of 1993 have no locus standi to question the impugned orders and as such the writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur and another Vs. E. Rama Rao and Others, and the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mithilesh Garg, Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc., .
For a proper appreciation of the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is useful to set out a few particulars of the nationalised route as well as the town service route in respect of which the grant of permits is sought for and the relevant terms and conditions of the approved scheme notified in G,O.Ms. No. 497 dated 20-9-1988.
The nationalised route is Bhimavaram to Kalavapudi via Kalla, Juvvalapalem, Pathalameraka. The length of this route is 26 K.ms. It is a mofussil service stage carriage. Clause (4) of the approved scheme which specifies the maximum and minimum number of vehicles proposed to be operated on the nationalised route by the State Transport Undertaking provides that such operation will be to the complete exclusion of all other persons holding stage carriage permits on the proposed route and such other persons holding stage carriage permits on the routes overlapping completely or partially on the proposed route except to the extent specified in the note thereunder. The relevant clauses of the note are as follows:
"Note: This scheme shall not affect:-
(1) ......
(2) The holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town services;
(3) ......
(4) The holders of stage carriage permits in respect of such route or routes overlapping not more than 8 k.ms. on the notified routes
(5) ....
The other clauses of the Note are not relevant for our purpose. The alleged new town service route in question for which applications were filed has a total length of 25 K.ms. of which 2.5 K.ms. lies within the municipal limits and the remaining 22.5 K.ms. is outside the municipal limits. The entire length of 25 K.ms. of this route overlaps the nationalised route. On the face of it, it is rather incongruous to call it a town service route when it overlaps almost the entire length of the nationalised route which is a mofussil service route. Merely because the approved scheme exempts holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes, under the guise of calling it a town-service route a private operator cannot obtain a permit to ply on the route contrary to the terms of the approved scheme. This would virtually defeat the very object of the scheme. In Kasturi''s case (supra), the Supreme Court firmly held that it is impermissible to do so.
The provisions of this scheme are identical to the provisions of the scheme which fell for consideration by me in W.P. Nos. 26535 and 26546 of 1995. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi''s case (supra), I held in the said writ petitions that the grant of stage carriage permits on a town service route, which is overlapping more than 8 K.Ms. on the notified route is prohibited by the scheme. The reasons given by me in the said judgment, therefore, hold good for these cases also.
Sri T. Venkataramana, the learned counsel for respondents/grantees, however, sought to place reliance on the judgment in W.A. No. 1361 of 1995 dated 27-11-1995 reported in Rajappa Kawati v. G. Hanumantha Rao (supra) wherein it was held that when the scheme is in respect; of a mofussil route, there cannot be a prohibition in respect of a grant on town service routes. It is, however, brought to my notice that the said judgment is under appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the said judgment by order dated 12-1-1996 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 28183 of 1995. Sri T. Venkataramana, however, submits that by reason of the order of stay granted by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Division Bench is not wiped out of existence and the declaration of law by the Division Bench still stands. But there is also a contrary view according to which the judgment suffers a total eclipse by reason of the stay. In view of this conflict of views, the question regarding the effect of a stay order has been referred to a larger Bench by order dated 14-11-1996 passed in W.A. No. 896 of 1996 and Batch to which I was a party. Be that as it may, the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1361 of 1995 reported in Rajappa Kawati v. G. Hanumantha Rao (supra) did not have the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi''s case (supra). Sri T. Venkataramana has also placed reliance on the judgment in W.A. No. 1326 of 1992, dated 27-2-1997 whereby the Division Bench affirmed the decision of a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7714 of 1992 dated 17-9-1992. The said judgment, however, does not throw any light on the question now under consideration as the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in that case on the sole ground that the expression "holders of stage carriage permits'' includes future grantees also. The question as to the effect of the approved scheme and whether it prohibits the grant of permits was not considered at all. I do not, therefore, think that the said judgment is of any assistance to the respondents herein.
Sri T. Venkataramana has further contended that Clauses (2) and (3) of the Note should be read independently, that Clause (2) alone applies to the present case, that the said clause totally exempts holders of stage carriage permits in respect of town services, existing as well as future, irrespective of the extent of overlapping on the notified route and that Clause (3), which prohibits overlapping of more than 8 K.ms., applies only to mofussil service routes but not to town service routes. In support of these submissions, the learned counsel tried to draw support from the judgment in W.P. No. 678 of 1988 dated 7-4-1978 and the judgment in W.P. No. 16923 of 1988 dated 3-10-1989. It is true that in these two judgments, there are observations to the effect that each clause in the Note of the scheme deals with a separate category and each clause is independent of the other. The said observations in my view have to be understood in the context in which they were made and they cannot be understood as laying down any proposition of law, that each clause should be invariably read independently without reference to the other. The generally accepted principle is that in construing the scheme, all the clauses of the scheme should be read together and a harmonious construction has to be placed on the various clauses of the scheme and any interpretation, which has the effect of defeating the very object and purpose of the scheme has to be eschewed. In Kasturi''s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of the scheme and the exceptions have to be read together. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, after a deatailed examination of the relevant statutory provisions and precedents held as follows in para 14 of the judgment :
"It would, thus, be clear that once a notified draft scheme has been approved and published, the private operators operate their services on the notified route strictly in accordance with the scheme only and within the exceptions engrafted thereunder. By necessary implication, the "town service" as defined in Rule 282 (2) (ii) has to be read subject to the scheme in Chapter IV A of the repealed Act. If so read, Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are to operate as an exception and they provide only a right to overlap not more than 8 K.ms., in the notified route. Otherwise, the town service will cease to be town service and would get transformed into a muffussil route and the private operator would run his stage carriage along the line of the notified route which is impermissble. When so read, though under Rule 282 (2) (ii) town service extends up to 8 Kms., from the municipal limits, that does not give any right to a holder of a town service stage carriage permit to run his vehicle beyond 8 Kms., on the notified route nor does it extend to 8 Kms., overlapping on the notified route from municipal limits."
This declaration of the law by the Supreme Court is binding on me under Article 141 of the Constitution.
In view of the said authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, I cannot accept the submissions of Sri T. Venkataramana. Though Sri T. Venkataramana tried to argue that the conditions of scheme under consideration in the instant cases are different from the conditions of the scheme considered by the Supreme Court in the Kasturi''s case (supra), I do not find any material difference in so far as the restriction of grant of permits on town service routes is concerned. On a proper construction of the various clauses in the scheme, I am satisfied that the scheme, with which we are concerned, prohibits the grant of permits on town service routes overlapping for a distance of more than 8 K.ms., on the notified route. It, therefore, follows that the impugned orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permits are unsustainable and they are liable to be quashed. The consequential orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granting permission under Rule 258 (2) (ii), which are purely dependent orders, also fall to the ground.
So far as the other two writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos. 17888 and 17889 of 1993 are concerned. I am inclined to agree with the submission that the petitioners therein have no locus standi to question the impugned orders. The petitioners claim to be the office bearers of two unions of the A.P.S.R.T.C. employees. It is claimed that on account of the grant of permits to the private operators the collections of the A.P.S.R.T.C. are likely to be adversely affected and as a consequence the employees of the A.P.S.R.T.C. are likely to be deprived of the incentives which are paid to them. I am afraid, this is too remote an interest to give any standing to the petitioners. In Secretary, R.T.A. Guntur v. E Rama Rao (supra), a Full Bench of this Court held that rival operators have no locus standi to file any objections or representations nor can they claim any legal right to be heard when the R.T.A. is dealing with new applications for grant of stage carriage permits. In Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court pointed out that the Motor Vehicles Act 59 of 1988 has greatly liberalised the grant of stage carriage permits to the private operators with the object of encouraging healthy competition and elimination of corruption and as such there can be no cause for complaint for the existing operators. I am, therefore, satisfied that the petitioners in these two writ petitions have no locus standi to maintain these two writ petitions. Sri Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners, tried to rely on the decision reported in Godde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, in which it was held that personal or proprietory interest is not necessary to move the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that even a fiduciary interest in the subject matter is sufficient. I fail to see how the said judgment can render any assistance to the petitioners herein. That apart, the petitioners have not questioned the original orders granting permits, but they are seeking to challenge only the consequential orders granting permission under Rule 258 (2) (ii). The writ petitions are, therefore, misconceived in my view.
In the result, W.P. Nos. 17467 of 1993, 17479 of 1993, 1626 of 1994 and 1657 of 1994 are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. W.P. Nos. 17888 and 17889 of 1993 are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
C.V.N. Sastri, J.
After the judgment was pronounced, Sri Venkataramana has made a request for suspending the operation of the judgment for four weeks so as to enable him to file Writ Appeals against the judgment and obtain necessary orders.
Considering the fact that the grantees have been plying their vehicles from the year 1993 onwards, the operation of this judgment is suspended for a period of two weeks from today.
That Rule Nisi issued in W.P. Nos. 17467/93, 17479/93, 1626/94 and 1657/94 has been made absolute as above.