C.S.DHARMADHIKARI, J. - (1.) As both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 in these writ petitions, who are transport operators, applied for a special permit under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act for undertaking a round tour of a party who engaged their public service vehicles. This application was rejected by the Regional Transport Officer by a speaking order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal by his orders dated 19th December, 1985 allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer. It is these orders of the Appellate Tribunal which are challenged in these writ petitions.
(3.) Shri Mory, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, contended before us that a scheme under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was framed nationalising all the routes in the State of Maharashtra. This scheme came into force on the 1st of January, 1974. The scheme covers the entire area of the State of Maharashtra. By Clause (4) of the scheme it was made clear that the undertaking will operate stage carriage and contract carriage services in the entire area of the State of Maharashtra and on all routes and portions thereof falling within the said area to the complete exclusion of all other persons, except qua the matters provided for by sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of Clause (4) of the scheme. In Clause (7) the minimum number of vehicles which the undertaking was required to ply at one time under the scheme was also mentioned and it was then stated that the Corporation shall maintain 50 semi-luxury buses in addition to its existing two semiluxury buses for the exclusive operation as contract carriage. Section 68-B of Chapter IV-A gives an overriding effect to the said Chapter over and above the provisions of Chapter IV and other laws. By section 68-FF restrictions on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route are imposed. Therefore, on the routes nationalised no permit could be granted by any of the authorities for a contract carriage or a stage carriage. According to Shri Mor, the special permit within the contemplation of section 63(6) is nothing but a contract carriage and is, therefore, covered by the scheme framed under Chapter IVA of the Act. This being the position in law, the Appellate Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in setting aside the orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer, rejecting the applications filed by the respondent-operators for a special permit under section 63(6) of the Act. In support of his contentions he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (M/S. Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another v. State of U.P. and others) A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 319 and the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (Mohd. Bashu and others v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and another) A.I.R. 1975 A.P. 242 and (G. Shaikh Shavalli Uravakonda and others v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantour and another) A.I.R. 1982 A.P. 296. It is also contended by Shri Mor that if the construction put up by the Appellate Tribunal is accepted,, then the very provision of section 63(6) will have to be declared as ultra vires since it is not only unintelligible and confusing, but will also become unworkable. Therefore, in substance it is contended by him that it will be violative of the petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.;