A. Seetamma vs Deputy Area Manager APSRTC, Ongole and others

Mr. Gangadhara Rao, J.—In these writ petitions, the lease of permits by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called '' the Corporations'', under the Mechanised Village Link Transport Scheme, is questioned. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is sufficient if I state the facts in Writ Petition No. 5456/78. The petitioner, Smt. A. Seetbamma, is operating a stage carriage with a permit on the route Mudivarthi to Nellore.

The Corporation prepared and published a Scheme u/s 68-C the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the nationalisation of road transport services in Nellore District on the routes (a) Neliore to Chinnavarappadu; and (b) Nellore to Cherlapalem. The petition has filed her objections opposing the Scheme. Further action u/s 68 (2) is not taken so far by the State Government. While so, a temporary permit was granted to the Corporation under Sec. 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act to play the Vehicles on the route, Nellore to Cherlapalem. Sri T. V. Ramanaiab, the 3rd respondent, was selected by the District Level Committee, Nellore, for allotment of the route Nellore to Cherlapalem on lease basis. Questioning the Village Link Transportation Services Scheme and allotment of the route on lease to Sri Ramanaiah by the District Level Committee, Nellore, Writ Petition No. 5456/78 has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner have submitted that the lease of the permit is void, for it is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Corporation has no power to lease the permit. It was also submitted that the District Level Committee is not the authority to grant the permits under the Motor Vehicles Act but it is only the Regional Transport Authority and so the order of the District Level Committee granting the permits is without jurisdiction. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Advocate-General that the Corporation is entitled to lease the permit under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (Act No. 54 of 1950), and, even otherwise, the petitioners cannot make a grievance of it, for they have not suffered any substantial injury.

The Government have taken a policy decision to provide mechanisbed transport facility to as many villages as possible. With a view to implement the scheme, the Government desired that a District Level Committee should be formed to screen the applications for runing the buses under lease from the Corporation under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The Committee should consist of the District Collector as the Chairman, the Deputy Transport Commissioner of the region as the Member and the Deputy Area Manager of the Corporation covering the District as the Convenor. Alt the applications of the private operators who desire to run the buses in respect of the Village Link Scheme under the lease from the Corporation will be received by the Deputy Area Manager having jurisdiction over the District before 20th September, 1978. The Deputy Area Manager will collect all the applications and place them before the Committee. It was proposed to give substantial tax incentives in respect of the operators who are willing to ply buses in pursuance of the village link scheme. It was expected that the tenure of this arrangement enabling the private operators to would be for a period of not less than two years. The Scheme was proposen to be implemented with effect from 2-10 0978.

Pursuant to that decision, the Corporation Published 484 Schemes requiring 512 buses covering all the districts in the State u/s 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. For some of the routes covered by these schemes. it was proposed to obtain temporary permits u/s 68-F (1-A) the Motor Vehicles Act and entrust the operation of services to private enter-preneurs duly entering into an agreement. The Corporation approved a Scheme of leasing out certain routes. It constituted the District Level Committees to screen the applications submitted by the private entrepreneurs for running the buses under lease from the Corporation under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The private entrepreneur should be able to procure and operate road-worthy vehicle duly registered in his name.

A ''private operator'' shall come under the purview of any one of the categories namely (a) Displaced operators; (b) Cooperatives: (c)Scheduled Tribe Candidates; (d) Schedule Caste Candidates; (e) Ex-Servicemen; and (f) Retired Employees of the Corporation. The persons belonging to the District shall be given preference. The enterpreneurs shall deposit an amount of Rs. 1,200/- as Security Deposit in three monthly instalments, that is Rs. 400/- each at the time of execution of the lease-deed and Rs. 400/- each on the 1st of the next two consecutive months. He should also pay an amount of Rs. 500/- (non-refund able) towards cost of initial service charges per permit at the time of entering into an agreement for the tenure of the agreement. He should also pay an amount of Rs. 150/- par month per permit in advance (i e., before the last day of the month) in the Office of the Deputy Area Manager of the respective region towards administrative and operation control charges. The private operators shall operate the serviced on the routes entrusted to them in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the conditions of the permit and the terms and conditions agreed upon mutally and incorporated in the agreement. The operations of the operators are subject to Supervision and control by the officer authorised in that behalf by the Government under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Rules, and the Officer of the Corporation authorised in that behalf. The irregularities committed in the operation of the services and breach of the conditions of the permit or agreement are punishable as per the various Acts and Rules in force and the provisions of the agreement entered into.

u/s 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, a State Transport undertaking can prepare a scheme for nationalisation of Road Transport Services. In this case the schemes were prepared by the Corporation to connect a number of Villages which were not hither to provided with bus transport facilities. u/s 68-D, on the publication of a scheme, objections can be filed by persons already providing transport facilities along or near the area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme. The State Government, after considering those objections, may approve or modify the Scheme. In this case, objections have been submitted to the schemes but so far they have not been heard by the Government. u/s 68-F (1-A), where any scheme has been published by a State Transport Undertaking u/s 68-C, that Undertaking may apply for a temporary permit, in respect of any area or route or portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme. If the transport authorities are satisfied that it is necessary to increase'' in the public Interest, the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof, they can issue the temporary permits to the State Transport undertaking. Applications for temporary permits were filed by the Corporation in this case and ''hey were granted. Under sub-section (1-C) if no application for a temporary permit is made under sub-section (1-C), the transport authorities may grant a temporary permit to any other persons, but that permit shall cease, to be effective on the issue of a permit to the corporation.

It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a temporary permit can be granted to the Corporation under Sec. 68-F (1-A). What is submitted is that before granting such a temporary permit, the Regional Transport Authority should be satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof, but, in these cases, no traffic survey was conducted before issuing the temporary permits and they were granted because of the scheme enumerated by the Government and, therefore, the grant of temporary permit to the corporation is bad.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation, it has been slated that the Corporation wanted to provide efficient adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated Road Transport Services to as many villages as possible within the shortest span of time and for the fulfilment to that object, several routes were surveyed with the sole object of serving the remote villages with mechanised transport services. In view of this averment, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the transport authorities were not satisfied with the need to grant temporary permits to the Corporation in the Public interest. Therefore, I hold that the temporary permits granted to the Corporation are valid and cannot be questioned by the Petitioners.

The next question for my consideration is whether the Corporation can lease out the temporary permits which they had obtained, to private operators under the mechanised village link transport scheme through the District Level Committees. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a lease of a permit is a transfer of a permit and it is prohibited by the Motor Vehicles Act.

Section 59 says that, save as provided in Section 61, a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the Transport Authority which granted the permit and shall not without such permission operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicles covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicles in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 61 provides, that where the holders of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered By the permit may, for a period of the three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself; provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the Transport Authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit. A reading of Sections 59 and 61 shows that a permit cannot be transferred from one person to another except with the permission of the Transport Authority which granted the permit and that without such permission a person to whom a vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. The only exception provided is the transport of the permit on the death of the holder of the permit,

Still, the question is whether the lease of a permit is a transfer of a permit within the meaning of Section 59. ''Lease'' or ''transfer as such are not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. According to Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, "transfer of property" means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself and one or more other persons; and "To transfer property" is to perform such act. Section 105 defines ''lease'', though of immoveable property, as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms. The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the permium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. Thus, transfer of a right to enjoy the property for a certain time for a price is a lease.

Pamit'' is defined by Section 2 (20) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as meaning the document issued by the transport authorities authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract, carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a private carrier, or public carrier to use such vehicle. Section 2 (28- A) of the Act defines ''route'' as meaning a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. In view of Section 42, no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance, with the conditions of the permit granted by the transport authorities authorising the use of the vehicle in that place. Section 46 provides that an application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage Should contain the particulars mentioned herein and one of them is the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application" relates. ''Rules 212 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1964, lays down the guide lines for grant of stage carriage permits.

In the light of these provisions, it becomes obvious that a person cannot ply a stage carriage on a route without a permit, and the transfer of a permit without the permission of the transport authority is prohibited. Permit is property. Lease is transfer of alight to enjoy property. Therefore lease of a permit is transfer of a permit. Transfer of a permit is prohibited under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act except with the permission of the transport authorities. In these, cases, admittedly, no such permission had been granted by the transport authorities for the Corporation to lease the temporary permits to private operators. That position is conceded by the learned Advocate-General. But, it is submitted by him that the lease of the permit by the Corporation to private operators is valid u/s 19 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. That section deals with the powers of the Corporation. Sub-section (1) says that subject to the provisions of the Act, a Corporation shall have power, among other things, to operate road transport services in the State and in any extended area. Sub-section (2-F) provides that Sub-section (1) shall include Power to enter into and perform all such contracts as may be necessary for the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers under the Act Clause (g) enables the Corporation to enter into and carry out agreements with any person carrying on business as a carrier of passengers or goods providing for the carriage of passengers of goods on behalf of the Corporation by that other person at a through fare or freight. It is submitted that in view of these powers, the Corporation can lease out permits to private operators. I am not able to agree. If the Corporation has to extend area or to enter into and perform all such contracts as may be necessary for the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers under the Act, it only means that it has the powers necessary for the performance of its duties and the exercise of its powers under that Act. Similarly, if the Corporation has the power to enter into agreements, it can only be with a person who is carrying on business as a carrier of passengers or goods. The Corporation cannot enter into such agreements with a person who is not carrying on business as a carrier of passengers. A person carries on business as a carrier of passengers by holding a permit. The persons to whom permits are now leased are not persons who are running stage carriages on valid permits granted to them. Grant of permits, regulation of permits, transfer of permits, cancellation of permits etc, are governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950'' has nothing to do with the grant of permits. That Act is designed to provide for the incorporation and regulation of the road transport corporations. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, deals with the transfer of permits. Consequently, I reject the contention that under Sec. 19 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, the Corporation has the power to lease out the permits in the manner in which it proposes to lease out, under the mechanised village link transport scheme.

The last question for my consideration is whether the petitioners can make a grievance of it and claim relief under Article 226 6f the Constitution of India.

Article 226 provides that the High Court can issue a writ for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any provision of any enactment or for the redress of any injury by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. Therefore, for a mere contravention of a provision of an enactment, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief unless he has suffered injury of a substantial nature. Similarly, by reason of any illegality in any proceeding, he cannot be grant any relief unless the illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. In these cases, it is not disputed that the petitioners continue to ply their vehicles on their routes. In fact, the routes of the petitions are different from the routes now sought to be notified. Only the petitioners ply their vehicles for some distance on these routes. It is not also disputed that before granting a temporary permit under Sec. 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, there is no need to issue any notice to the transport operators plying on that route or that area and bear them. Under that sub-section, it is only the Road Transport Corporation that could be given the temporary permit. If the petitioners cannot complain when the temporary permit is granted to the Corporation. I do not see how they can complain, when the Corporation leases out that permit to another person. In these circumstances, I do not see what injury the petitioners have suffered. Even assuming that their income might "be affected to some extent by the grant of a temporary permit, the position would be the same when that temporary permit is granted to the Corporation u/s 68-F (1-A) of the Act. Merely because the Corporation has teased out that temporary permit to private operators, it cannot be said that the petitioners have suffered "substantial injury'' or there is substantial failure of justice''. On that sole ground, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these writ petitions.

To summarise, I hold that the temporary permit granted to the Corporation under sec. 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is valid. But, the lease of the permit to other persons under the Mechanised Village Link Transport Scheme by the Corporation is not valid. ''Since the petitioners have not suffered any substantial injury, no relief is granted to them.

In Writ Petition Nos. 5598 and 5263 of 1978, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioners have filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal u/s 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act questioning the grant of temporary permit to the corporation and it is pending. It is further stated that the in erim suspension granted by this Court bad been vacated and the 5th respondent is now plying the vehicle on the route from 1-12-1978. IN W.P. No. 5328/78, the petitioner himself applied for the lease of permit to the District Level Committee, but it was refused. Then, he filed the Writ Petition questioning the Scheme It is not necessary for me to decide their contentions in the view, I have taken on the main questions. Consequently, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear his costs in each Writ Petition.