S.M. Haneef vs Transport Commissioner, Govt. of A.P. and others

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting special permit u/s 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the idle vehicles owned by the petitioner, from time to time, the present writ petition has been filed.

Heard the Government Pleader for Transport.

In the counter-filed by the respondents it is stated that the vehicles owned by the petitioner are covered by All India Tourist Permits, which are going to expire in the year 2000, As long as the vehicles are covered by All India Tourist Permit, the petitioner has to pay tax per vehicle at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per seat per quarter, which comes to Rs.85,000/- per quarter. But, subsequently, the petitioner, got cancelled the All India Tourist Permit on 5-8-1998 on the ground that there was no tourist business. It is the case of the respondents that to avoid tax, the petitioner adapted this method of plying the vehicle continuously on the route Hyderabad to Bombay and vice-versa, by obtaining temporary permits /special permits, whereby he was paying tax only at the rate of Rs.51,000/- per quarter, thus evading the tax of Rs.34,000/- per quarter. It is also the case of the respondents that the vehicles are found plying continuously on the route Hyderabad to Bombay and there is every suspicion that the petitioner is plying the vehicle as a Stage Carriage than a contract carriage. The respondent Counsel further contended that the respondents never refused to grant of special permits but only directed the Motor Vehicle Inspector to contact the contractor who engaged the vehicle and submit a report. In the mean time, the petitioner rushed to this Court without waiting for the orders passed by the respondents.

As per the version of the respondents, they cannot grant permits unless they are satisfied about the genuineness of the contracting party and whether the vehicle is likely to carry passengers from one point to another without stopping or without picking up or allowing the commutors to get down, included in the contract enroute and the authorities have to take necessary precautions to prevent pilferage of revenues to the Government. Both the parties agreed that u/s 88(8) of the Act, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of a region has to consider the grant of Special Permit, subject to the Rules made by the Central Government under the Act. But, as no Rules have been framed under this Section for grant of Special Permits, the entire issuance of Special Permits left to the discretion of the authorities concerned. Hence, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless certain guidelines are issued by the High Court, the harrassment that is being melted out to the operators cannot be minimised.

In the light of the submissions made by both the parties, I am inclined to pass the following order:

The Supreme Court in Achyut Shivram Gokhale Vs. Regional Transport Officer and Others, , held that Contract Carriage Permit and Special Permit are not one and same and a special permit is ordinarily taken to meet a need that exists for a few days like carrying a marriage party or persons going on a piligrimage etc. In other words while the Contract Carriage Permit covers for the whole quarter for the tax paid, under a Special Permit the owner of an idle vehicle has to pay tax at a concessional rate as required by the Taxation Act. A look at sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the Act makes it clear that Special Permit can be granted for the convenience of the public to any public service vehicle for carrying passengers for cash or reward express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole. While a Contract Carriage Permit issued by a Regional Transport Authority of any one region is not valid in any other region unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region as provided u/s 63(1), a Special Permit issued by one Regional Transport Authority u/s 63(6) is valid in any other region or State without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or the other State as the case may be. An idle vehicle has to be engaged by the contractor as a whole under a contract the same being express or implied by a passenger or passengers and the vehicle so engaged shall not stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract along the line of route.

This Court considering a similar situation with regard to Contract Carriage has taken the view that the Contractor while applying for a permit shall file a list of passenger before the authorities along with the application. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that permit has to be issued immediately on the basis of the list of passengers filed by the contractor along with the application without verifying its genuinity. I am afraid, I cannot accept the contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioner. In the light of the language of sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the Act, without going into the merits or demerits of the rival contentions, I am inclined to direct the respondents to consider the applications of the operators for grant of special permits on fulfilment of the following conditions:

The operator has to file an application seeking Special Permit with the contract entered into between him and the contractor duly enclosing the list of passengers, atleast 24 hours before the commencement of journey, unless special circumstances exist. As and when special circumstances exist, it is always open to the authorities concerned to relax the time limit for submitting the application. After receipt of the application, the authorities concerned shall complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and see that permission is accorded to the operator atleast three hours before commencement of the journey.

The commutors travelling in the vehicle should belong to one homogenious group and they should undertake the journey for a common purpose.

The driver shall always keep the list of passengers along with the vehicle till the vehicle completes the trip as shown in the Special Permit.

The entire party shall travel point to point. Ofcourse, if any of the passengers wants to get down enroute, it is always open to him, to do so, but the operators shall not pick up any passenger in place of the person who got down.

With the above directions and guidelines the writ petition is disposed of.