HYDERABAD: In a major relief to the Telangana government, a High Court division bench on Friday dismissed the PIL filed challenging the State Cabinet’s decision to privatise permits of 5,100 routes in the State. The bench made it clear that the State government has the authority to give permission to private bus operators under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
As per the Act, the State government has powers to control road transport, introduce competition among transport service providers keeping in view the parameters such as passenger convenience, economic competition, competitive fares, prevention of overcrowding and road safety as defined under Section 67 (3) of the Act, the bench noted.
The bench while dismissing the PIL filed by Prof PL Vishweshwar Rao, vice-president of Telangana Jana Samithi, seeking to grant stay of all further proceedings in privatisation of 5,100 permits of the RTC, said that once it has come to a conclusion that the State has the authority, the Court did not find any fault in the Cabinet decision which was taken when bus transportation has come to a grinding halt and that the people were put to lot of inconvenience due to RTC strike.
Though the petitioner’s counsel Chikkudu Prabhakar contended that the decision was taken in bad faith when the workmen are on strike, the bench said that there is no bar for the government for taking such a decision during the strike period.
The bench said that the anxiety of the petitioner that the State government is going to completely remove the TSRTC is misplaced, obviously because the provisions of Chapter V and VI of the MV Act will have to be kept in mind by invoking the power of the State under Section 102 and 67 of the Act, 1988. Therefore, at best, the State government would be justified in bringing in private sector players into the TSRTC only up to 50 per cent and not beyond, the bench added.
State has power to decide as per law
It made it clear that the State transport authority is basically a quasi judicial authority and according to Section 68 (3) of the Act it has the power to resolve disputes and coordinate activities and policies of the regional transport authority.
When it was pointed out that permission has been given to a quasi judicial authority, rather than to the principal secretary of transport, the State Advocate General BS Prasad gave an undertaking to the court that the government would follow due procedures laid down under the Act, and the entire process of privatising 5,100 permits will be done by the principal secretary concerned.
The bench said, therefore, the court has come to the conclusion that the State has ample power to take a decision to initiate the process as per law. When counsel Prabhakar urged the court for keeping the present court order under suspension for 10 days to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the SC, the bench refused saying it cannot be suspended once the case is dismissed.