Right of Existing Operators in RTA Permit Allocations: An Analysis of The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur And Another Etc. v. E. Rama Rao And Others Etc.

Introduction

The case of The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur And Another Etc. v. E. Rama Rao And Others Etc. adjudicated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on August 9, 1990, delves into the procedural rights of existing stage carriage permit holders in the wake of new applications under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The primary contention revolves around whether existing bus operators retain the entitlement to submit representations or be heard before the Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) when fresh permits are under consideration, as well as their right to access new permit applications for the purpose of lodging objections.

Summary of the Judgment

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, after a detailed examination, held that existing stage carriage permits do not confer any legal right upon current operators to submit representations or secure a hearing before the R.T.A. during the grant of new permits. Furthermore, the Court determined that existing operators are not entitled to certified copies of applications filed by new applicants under Rule 166 of the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as these rights were explicitly omitted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the R.T.A.'s refusal to provide such privileges were dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several pivotal cases to substantiate its decision:

• State of Orissa v. Binapani Devi (AIR 1967 SC 1269): Addressed the procedural rights in administrative actions.
• Mohd. Ibrahim v. S.T.A Tribunal, Madras (AIR 1970 SC 1542): Clarified the scope of representations under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that such representations occur post-application and do not influence the administrative limits set under S. 47(3).
• Hans Raj Kehar v. State of U.P (AIR 1975 SC 389): Asserted that existing operators do not possess an inherent right to object to new permit grants unless explicitly provided by law.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. State of U.P (AIR 1983 SC 383): Reinforced the stance in Hans Raj Kehar, maintaining that legislative changes nullify previous rights if not explicitly reinstated.
• J.M Desai v. Roshan Kumar (AIR 1976 SC 578): Differentiated specific instances where undertakings influence legal rights, which the Court found inapplicable to the present case.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which had introduced significant procedural changes from its predecessor, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Key points include:

• Legislative Intent: Parliament had deliberately omitted provisions granting existing operators the right to representations and hearings, aiming to liberalize permit allocations.
• Constitutional Provisions: Under Articles 19(1)(g) and (6) of the Indian Constitution, while individuals have the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, these rights can be reasonably restricted by law for public interest. The Court viewed the new Act as reflecting such legislative intent.
• Absence of Express and Implied Rights: Since the new Act did not contain explicit provisions for representations by existing operators, and given the legislative intent towards liberalization, the Court refused to imply such rights.
• Principles of Natural Justice: While natural justice principles are generally implied in administrative actions affecting legal rights, the Court determined that their application had been intentionally curtailed by the new statutory framework.

Impact

This landmark judgment clarified the boundaries of procedural rights for existing operators in the context of new permit allocations. By upholding the legislative changes introduced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court reinforced the authority of the R.T.A. to manage permit allocations without being encumbered by the procedural constraints of pre-existing operators. This decision paves the way for a more streamlined and less obstructed permit allocation process, encouraging competition and efficiency within the public transport sector.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Stage Carriage Permit: A legal authorization granted to bus operators allowing them to run bus services on specified routes.
• Representation: The right to formally present objections or support regarding administrative decisions.
• Natural Justice: Legal principles ensuring fair decision-making processes, typically including the right to a fair hearing and unbiased adjudication.
• Rule 166: A specific provision in the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, allowing individuals interested in appeals or revisions to obtain certified copies of relevant documents upon payment of a fee.
• Article 19(1)(g) & (6) of the Constitution: Fundamental rights pertaining to the freedom to practice any profession, trade, or business and the allowance for reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.

Conclusion