HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday said the state Cabinet’s decision to privatise 5,100 RTC routes cannot be faulted since it has only initiated the process under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The process has not commenced, and there is no evidence to prove the state’s ulterior motive on the issue as alleged by the petitioner, the bench said, adding that Section 67 of the Act bestows power on the state government to bring a private state carriage system into the RTC, and that power cannot be snatched by the court.
“We are moving away from a socialist background to the private sector, and the law permits this. We are in the age of globalisation and capitalism... We cannot stick to the 1947 period. Even private players are allowed in the railway sector. The (Central) government took a conscious decision of allowing private players even in the airlines sector. This court is bound to abide by the amendments passed by Parliament... The petitioner’s argument does not hold water”, the court observed.
HC extends interim order on privatisation of RTC routes
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice A Abhishek Reddy, made these observations on a PIL filed by Prof PL Vishweshwar Rao, vice-president of the Telangana Jana Samithi, challenging the State Cabinet’s November 2 decision to privatise permits of 5,100 TSRTC routes. The petitioner sought a stay on all further proceedings on privatisation of the permits.
Earlier, the bench directed the government and RTC authorities not to take any steps that would precipitate the situation due to privatisation of permits, till the next hearing. On Tuesday, the bench extended the earlier interim order till adjudication of the PIL.
After perusing the contents of the Cabinet decision, the bench said there is no bar under Section 102 on the government taking such a decision. The petitioner’s counsel, Chikkudu Prabhakar, said there was an ulterior motive behind the Cabinet’s decision to privatise the permits.
The decision was taken when the RTC workmen were on strike, with the staff facing huge hardships for want of salaries since September. Even the chief minister said there would be no RTC in the near future and that statement is substantiated by the Cabinet decision to allocate 5,100 permits to private persons, he argued, adding that the government has violated Section 102 of the Act and misused its powers.
Reacting to this, the court said the Cabinet decision can be challenged only when various sections of the Act are violated prior to the decision of allocating permits to private persons. As of now, that stage has not arrived and it is only the commencement of the privatisation process.
The petitioner’s allegation that the government has a hidden agenda and ulterior motive should be proved with sufficient evidence, the court said, adding that the government might have taken the Cabinet decision since Section 67 of the Act permits it to do so.
“Show us the law as to whether the Cabinet decision is legal or illegal”, the CJ told the counsel. Not satisfied with the counsel’s submissions, the bench said Section 102 of the Act does not speak about the livelihood of workers.
Since Section 67 permits the state to take a decision, the Cabinet might have taken the decision intending to dilute the RTC’s monopoly by introducing private state carriages. Had the Parliament of India said it is worried about the livelihood and welfare of the workers, then so many amendments to various laws could not have been made. In fact, the trend is more and more privatisation is in the anvil, the bench observed.
“In the 1980s, Air India ruled the skies, but now, so many private airlines have invaded the skies. Though some have exited, the others are ruling the skies. The decision taken by Parliament has opened the doors to private airlines and the law does not prohibit introduction of the private sector into the transportation sector,” the bench said.
It added that the petitioner’s argument that the Cabinet decision would adversely affect the welfare of employees was misplaced. “Private players have even invaded the Indian Railways, which was a monopoly till some years back," the bench said and posted the matter to Wednesday for further hearing.