MOHAMMAD BASHA Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution are owners of Motor Vehicles hired from time to time as contract carriages. They contend that hitherto they used to apply for the grant of special per-mite under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the prescribed form PTOVA and that special permits used to be granted in the prescribed form PTOV. Neither the rules nor the prescribed forms require them to furnish the names of all the passengers who propose to utilize the contract carriage under the special permit. It was never considered necessary. Recently the Regional Transport Authorities of the District of Krishna, Kurnool, Guntur and West Godavari, have started insisting on the applicants for special permits submitting along with the applications for special permits complete lists of passengers proposed to be carried by the contract carriages under the special permits to be issued. The petitioners object to the insistence of the Transport Authorities to furnish a list of passengers. They have filed these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the Transport Authorities not to insist on the petitioners furnishing a list of passengers.

(2.) Sri P. Ramakotl, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 639 and 983 of 1974 and Srimathi K. Amareswari, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. Ps. Nos. 6771 of 1973 and 1141 of 1974 argue that the transport authorities have no right to insist upon an applicant for a special permit furnishing a list of passengers. Neither the rules nor the prescribed forms require an applicant to furnish such a list. The act also does not contemplate it. It is argued that it is impracticable to furnish such a list since the names of all passengers who are likely to use the contract carriage may not be known till the last minute. According to the learned counsel, it is not necessary that the application for a special permit should be preceded by a contract. They contend that the contract between the owner of the vehicle and the parties proposing to travel may be entered into at any time before the contract carriage starts on its journey. They also argue that often times some tourist agency or an individual enters into a contract with the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle may not know the names of the passengers until they board the vehicle. Therefore, they argue that if the authorities are anxious to prevent an abuse of the permit by contract carriages being used as stage carriages they may well insist on every contract carriage maintaining a list of passengers, travelling in the vehicle as proposed in the proposed amendment to Rule 213. The insistence on a complete list of passengers being furnished along with an application for a special permit, they claim, is illegal and unjustified.

(3.) Section 2 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines Contract carriage and is as follows:--