JUDGMENT

DUTT, J. :— These appeals by special leave preferred at the instance of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, and the State of Karnataka, are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants and affirming that of the learned single Judge of the High Court where by the Rule issued on the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 D. P. Sharma was made absolute

2. The respondent No. 1, who is the owner of a public service vehicle, made an application on Oct. 10, 1976 to the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the period from Nov. 15, 1976 to Nov. 22,1976. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the said application on the ground that the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act. 1976 (he reinafter referred to as the Ad) prohibit the grant of such permits. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the refusal by the Regional Transport Authority to grant a special permit filed a writ petition in the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application of the respondent No. 1 for the grant of a special permit..

3. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellants preferred a writ appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.-The bench took the view that the .intention of the Legislature was that only a public service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had been issued when the Act came into force and which was not operating as a stage carriage should be acquired. Accordingly, it was held that a public service vehicle in relation to which a special permit had not been issued when the Act came into force would not come with in the definition of contract carriage under S. 3(g) of the Act and the prohibition contained in S. 20 of the Act against the grant of contract carriage permit would not extend to the grant of special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants.

4. The only point that is involved in these appeals is whether after the coming into force of the Act, a special permit under S. 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted under the Act.

5. The Act is to provide for the acquisition of contract carriages and for matters incidental, aucillary or subservient thereto. The preamble provides, inter alia as follows :-

"Whereas contract carriages and certain other categories of public service vehicles are being operated in the State in a manner highly detrimental and prejudicial to public interest;

And whereas with a view to prevent much misuse and also to provide better facilities for the transport of passengers by road and to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

And whereas for the, aforesaid purposes it is considered necessary to provide for the acquisition of contract carriages and certain other categories public service vehicles in the State and for matters incidental, ancillary or subservient thereto;"

6. It is apparent from the preamble of the Act that the primary object of the Act is acquisition of contract carriages with a view to preventing misuse and also to provide better facilities for the transport of passengers by road. Besides the preamble, we may refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Act which will show the background for the enactment of the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Act is as follows :-

"A large number of contract carriages were being operated