Back
2019 Supreme(Telangana) 232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, A. ABHISHEK REDDY, JJ.
Prof. P.L. Vishweshwar Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. By Its Chief Secretary to Government & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. (PIL). 149 of 2019
Decided On : 22-11-2019
For the Petitioner:Chikkudu Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Respondents:B.S. Prasad, J. Ramachandra Rao Learned Additional Advocate Generals
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 12 - Trade unions, representing the interests of the workmen, had issued notice to the Corporation in September, 2019, wherein they had claimed that if their demands were not met by the Corporation, and by the State Government, they would go on strike – Despite the best efforts of the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the conciliation proceedings did not fructify into a settlement between the workmen and the Corporation – Challenged – Held, Decision to modify a scheme necessarily has to be taken by State Government to grants permission to the State Transport Authority – But the State Transport Authority has been constituted under Section 68 of the Act of 1988 – The State Transport Authority is basically a quasi-judicial authority, which according to Section 68(3) of the Act of 1988, has the power to resolve the disputes, and to coordinate and regulate the activities, and policies of the Regional Transport Authority – Hence, the State Transport Authority does not personify the state government – Once this fact was pointed out to the learned Advocate General that the permission has been given to a quasi-judicial authority mentioned in Section 68 of the Act of 1988, rather than to the Principal Secretary, Transport, the learned Advocate General gives an undertaking, before this Court that, in fact, the procedure mentioned under Section 102 of the Act of 1988 shall be carried out by the Principal Secretary, Transport, Government of Telangana, and by none else – Once this undertaking has been given by the learned Advocate General, once this Court has concluded that the State Government has ample power to take a decision to initiate the procedure under Section 102 of the Act of 1988, this Court does not find any fault with the impugned decision of the Cabinet dated 02.11.2019 – Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition; it is, hereby, dismissed. (Para 36, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation', for short), respondent No. 3, was formerly the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation was created in 2016. Presently, there are about 48,000 persons who work for the said Corporation. The Corporation has a fleet of about 10,500 buses, and plies its buses on 3,726 notified routes throughout the State of Telangana.
Findings of the case:
Decision to modify a scheme necessarily has to be taken by State Government to grants permission to the State Transport Authority – But the State Transport Authority has been constituted under Section 68 of the Act of 1988 – The State Transport Authority is basically a quasi-judicial authority, which according to Section 68(3) of the Act of 1988, has the power to resolve the disputes, and to coordinate and regulate the activities, and policies of the Regional Transport Authority – Hence, the State Transport Authority does not personify the state government – Once this fact was pointed out to the learned Advocate General that the permission has been given to a quasi-judicial authority mentioned in Section 68 of the Act of 1988, rather than to the Principal Secretary, Transport, the learned Advocate General gives an undertaking, before this Court that, in fact, the procedure mentioned under Section 102 of the Act of 1988 shall be carried out by the Principal Secretary, Transport, Government of Telangana, and by none else – Once this undertaking has been given by the learned Advocate General, once this Court has concluded that the State Government has ample power to take a decision to initiate the procedure under Section 102 of the Act of 1988, this Court does not find any fault with the impugned decision of the Cabinet dated 02.11.2019 –
Result: Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition; it is, hereby, dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Professor P. L. Vishweshwar Rao, a public spirited person, who also happens to be the Convener of Telangana Democratic Forum, and Vice-President of Telangana Janasamithi, has filed the present Public Interest Litigation in order to challenge the legality of the Cabinet decision dated 02.11.2019, whereby the Cabinet has decided to grant 5,100 stage carriage permits to private transport operators.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation', for short), respondent No. 3, was formerly the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation was created in 2016. Presently, there are about 48,000 persons who work for the said Corporation. The Corporation has a fleet of about 10,500 buses, and plies its buses on 3,726 notified routes throughout the State of Telangana.
3. The trade unions, representing the interests of the workmen, had issued notice to the Corporation in September, 2019, wherein they had claimed that if their demands were not met by the Corporation, and by the State Government, they would go on strike. Despite the best efforts of the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the conciliation proceedings did not fructify into a settlement between the workmen and the Corporation. Therefore, on 05.10.2019, the workers of the Corporation went on strike. Even today, the strike continues to be observed by the trade unions. During the continuation of the strike, on 02.11.2019, the State Cabinet has taken a decision to grant 5,100 stage carriage permits to private transport operators. Aggrieved by the said decision, the present PIL has been filed.
4. Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, Article 31B of the Constitution of India provides protection to the Acts, and Regulations, which are specified in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Item 125 of the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India specifically mentions Section 66A, and Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. According to the learned counsel, Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is presently Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act of 1988', for short). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Chapter VI of the Act of 1988 has a constitutional protection.
Secondly, Chapter VI of the Act of 1988 deals with the "Special Provisions Relating to State Transport Undertakings". Therefore, it covers the Corporation.
Thirdly, according to Section 98 of the Act of 1988, the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act of 1988, and the Rules and orders made there under, shall have effect "notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter V, or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law". Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Chapter VI of the Act of 1988 has paramountcy over Chapter V of the Act.
Fourthly, Chapter V of the Act of 1988 deals with "control of transport vehicles". Although Section 67 of the Act of 1988 empowers the State Government "to control road transport", but the power given under the said provision is not unbridled and cannot be invoked in order to dilute, or derail the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act of 1988.
Fifthly, Section 99 of the Act of 1988 empowers the State Government to prepare, and publish a proposal regarding road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking. These schemes have to be formulated by the State Government. According to Section 99(2) of the Act of 1988, once a scheme has been published in favour of the Road Transport Corporation, no person can be granted a permit permanently in the routes notified. Only a temporary permit can be granted and that too, for a period of one year. Moreover, according to Section 104 of the Act of 1988, once an area or route has been notified
