Dharmadhikari, J.
1. As both these writ Petitioner 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 Petiitons, who are transport operators, applied for a special permit 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 Trnasport 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 Mor, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, contended befor 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 Cl. (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 Maharshtra 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 Cl. (4) of the Scheme. In Cl. (7) the minimum number of vehicles which the Undertaking was requried 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 semi-luxury buses for the exclusive operation as contract carriages. Section 68B of Chapter IV A gives an overriding effect to the said chapter over and above the provisions of chapter Iv and other laws. By S. 68FF 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 contemplationn of S. 62 (6) is nothing but a contract cariage 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 order apssed by the Regional Trnasport Officer, rejecting the applications filed by the respondent-operators for a special permit under S.63(6) of the Act. In support of his contentions he had placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Travesl Bus Service v. State of U.P., : AIR1986SC319 and the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High court in Mohd. Basha v. The Secretary Regional Transport Authority, : AIR1975AP242 and G. Shaikh Shavalli Uravakonda v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Anantpur, : AIR1982AP296 .It is also contended by Shri Mor that if the construction put up by the Appellate Tribunal is accepted, then the very provision of S. 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 Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
4. On the other hand, it is contended by Shri Madkholkar and Smt. Usha Purohit, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-operator that though in the liberal and broader sense of the term every operation under the Motor Vehicles Act is under a contract, the expression 'contract carriage' defined in S. 2(3) of the Act will not take in its import a special permit granted under S. 63(3) of the Act According to htem, the special permit is entirely different and distinct from the stage carriage permit or the contract carriage permit. What is included in the Scheme framed under Chapter IV A of the Act is only the stage carriage and contract carriage services. The Scheme does not cover the special permit for which a different and distinct provision is made under S. 63(6) of the Act. The said provision is a complete code in itself. If the relevant provisions of the Act viz. S.S. 49, 50, 51 68C and 68E are read together and harmoniously, then a conclusion is inevitable that the special permit is a class by itself and it is neither a contract carriage permit nor a stage carriage permit. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, in the Scheme framed under Chapter IV-A a special permit is neither included, nor It could be included. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that since special permit is not covered by the scheme framed under Chapter IV A of the Act, the applications filed by the operators could not be rejected. In support of their contention, they have placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka High Curt in S.R.M.S. Tourist Service Co., Bangalore v. Secretary, Regional Trnasport Authority AIR 1975 Kant 166.
5. Therefore, the main question which requires consideration in these Writ Petitioner is to find out as to whether the special permit within the contemplation of S.63(6) of the Act is covered by the Scheme framed under Chapter IV A of the Act. It is not disputed nor could it be disputed that if it is held that the special permit is also covered by the Scheme, then the Regional Transport Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the special permit qua the areas and the routes nationalised and covered by the Scheme. Sec-'permit', which means the document issued by the commissioner or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage, or stage carriage, or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle. Section 2(3) defines the expresson 'contract carriage' as under:--
'2(3) 'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum-
(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance, or
(ii) from one point to another, and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract and includes a motor car notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares;'
The terms 'public service vehicle' and 'stage carriage' are defined in Ss. 2(25) and 2(29) of the Act, which read as under:--
'2(25) 'public service vehicle' means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;'
'2(29) 'stage carriage' means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey;'
The expression 'special permit' as used in S. 63(6) is not defined in the Act. The said sub-section reads as under :--
'63(6) Notwithstanding an thing con-rules that may be made under this Act, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in relation to a public service vehicle for carriage a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or State without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport Authority of the other State, as the case may be.'
From the bare reading of this section, it is quite clear that a special permit could be in relation to a public service vehicle for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied. The Regional Transport Authority has to assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a spcial distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central government, and this distinguishing mark describes it as a contract carriage. However, it is contended by Shri Madkolkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-operators, that to be a contract carriage, the carriage should carry passengers for hire or reward under a contracat - express or implied, on a time basis or from one point to another. In the case of a special permit for a round tour, it cannot be said that the permit is asked for carrying passengers from one point to another. In such a tour a specified party consisting of the named persons is carried from a point and after conducting the round tour is again brought back to the said point only. Therefore, it is not a permit granted to a contract carriage to carry passengers from one point to another, nor is it granted on a time basis. The permit which could be granted under S. 42 of the Act is for the use of public vehicle is a public place and in a given case it could be for an empty bus also, while the special lpermit could be for carrying passengers only. Further, the factors which are relevant for granting stage carriage or contract carriage permits are not relevant for granting the special permit. Therefore, in permit is district and separate from the contract carriage. Section 63(6) of the Act is a complete Code in itself and is not controlled by any other provisions of the Act. Section 63(6) was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act by Act No. 100 of 1956 by which enactment Chapter IV A was also introduced in the Act. Therefore, both thse provisions will have to be read and construed harmoniously so as to give effect to S. 63(6) of the Act. so read it will have to be held that the special permit within the contemplation of S. 63(6) of the Act is special in nature and is neither a contract carriage permit nor a stage carriage permit. According to him, lthis is what has been laid down by the Karnataka High Court in AIR 1975 Kant 166, S.R.M.S. Tourist Service Co. v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority.
6. We find it difficult to accept these contentions. It is no doubt true that S. 63(6) of the Act was also inserted in the Act by Act No. 100 of 1956. Sub-section (5) was thereafter omitted by Act. 25 of 1968. However, the purpose and object for amending S. 63 are made clear by the Aims and Objects of the said enactment, which read as under :--
'Under the existing provisions, the owner of a private carrier has to obtain a permit from a Regional Transport Authority and has to get it counter-signed by the concerned Regional Transport Authority if he plies the vehicles in another region. In States in which the administrative districts contitute regions for the purposes of the Act, this involves obtaining counter-signature even for moving from one district to another. This means a considerable restriction on the private carrier. The object of thse provisions was to ensure road-rail co-ordination and the prevention of deterioration of the road system. In principle, there is no great justification for denying to the private lorry owner the freedom that is enjoyed by the owner of a private motor car. It is, therefore, proposed to provide that a permit issued by a Regional Transport Authority, for a private carrier shall be valid throughout that State. The amendment in sub-clause (a) makes the necessary provision.
Under the existing provisions, the procedure prescribed for the grant of a permit has to be gone through even for obtaining counter-signature of permits originally granted in a neighbouring State. This is unnecessary and hampers the free flow of inter-State traffic. Counter-signature of permits granted in a State as a result of reciprocal agreement arrived at between two State should be only a formality. The amendment in sub-clause (b) makes provision in this behalf.
There is at present no provision in S. 63 whereby permits issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir can be accepted as valid in India. The amendment in sub-clause (c) makes such a provision and is mainly designed to facilitate reciprocal arrangements for regular services and / or occasional visits of buses used as contract carriages and motor cabs between places in India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The other amendment made by Cl. (c) is intended for the convenience of the public, who wish to travel unhampered from one State to another.'
From this it is clear that the amendment came to be effected for the convenience of the public who wished to travel unhampered from one State to another. It is not disputed nor it could be disputed that even qua a special permit under S. 63(3) of the Act, before granting it, there should be a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle. Therefore, the special permit is also for a contract carriage. It is not correct to say that when a round tour is undertaken or a permit is asked for undertaking such a tour, passengers are not carried from one point to another. The round tour is also from point to point. The passengers are taken from a point to another point and then brought back. Therefore, it will not be correct to say that a special permit could not be termed as a contract carriage permit within the meaning of the said expression as defined by S. 2(3) of the Act.
7. We find it difficult to endorse the view taken by the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in S.R.M.S. Tourist Service's case AIR 1975 Kant 166. It appears from the judgment that in that case a scheme under S. 66C of the Act proposing notionalisation of the contract carriage was only published and a Scheme as such was not framed. While considering the expression 'special permit' as used in S. 63(60 of the Act, the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court has not taken into consideration the various other provisions of the Act. As already noted, the relevant provisions will be definitions of the various expressions such as 'permit' (S.2(2))), 'stage carriage' (S.2(29)), 'contract carriage'(S2(3)), 'public servie vehicle' (S. 2(25) as well as Ss. 68B and 68FF and also the relevant rules and forms prescribed thereunder. It also appears that the special distinguishing mark assigned to such a special permit was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Further, it cannot be forgoten that specific rules are framed by the State of Maharshtra prescribing forms for application even for a special permit under Rr. 80 and 81 of the rules, which in clearest terms describe that a special permit is in respect of a contract carriage. Therefore, if the various provisions of the Act and the Rules are read together, a conclusion is inevitable that a permit described as a special permit in S. 63(6) of the Act is nothing but a permit in respect of a contract carriage.
8. In the very nature of things, only two trypes of carriages are contemplated by the Act viz. 'contract carriage' and 'stage carriage'. Even for the issuance of a special permit, a contract-express or implied-in relation to a public service vehicle for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward is a must. Therefore, it will have to be held that a special permit within the contemplation of S. 63(6) ofd the Act is nothing but a special contract carriage permit and nothing else. In substance, therefore, it is nothing but a contract carriage permit and is not any way different or distinct from the contract carriage as defined by S. 2(3) of the Act. It is not disputed before us that if it is held that the said carriage is also included in the Scheme, then by vitue of the provisions of Chapter IV A and the Scheme itself, no permit could be granted qua the routes covered by the Scheme. In the Scheme it is provided that the Undertaking will operate stage carriage and contract carriage services in the entire area of the State of Mahrashtra and on all the routes and portions thereof falling within the said area to the complete exclusion of all other persons. Therefore, what is ought to be nationalised is the operation of the stage carriage and contract carriage services. Special permit covered by S. 63(6) is also meant for a contract carriage service and, therefore, is obviously included in the cheme. What is the effect of framing of the Scheme under Chapter IV A of the Act is by now well-settled. In this context, reference could usefully be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Adarsh Travels Bus Service v. State of U.P., : AIR1986SC319 . From this decision of the supreme court it is clear that while the provisions of chapter IV A are devised to override the provisions of Chapter IV and it is expressly so enacted, the provisions of Chapter IVA are clear and complete regarding the manner and effect of the 'take over' of the operation of a road transport service by the State Transport undertaking in relation to any area or route or portion thereof. If the construction put up by Shri Madkholkar is accepted, then in the words of the Supreme Court, 'such special permits can be used as mere ruses or traps to obtain permits and to frustrate the very scheme of nationalisation. Such an interpretation will not only run counter to the various provisions of the Act, but will frustrate the very object and intention of the legislature. It is a well-settled rule of construction and interpretation that what is directly prohibited cannot be allowed to be achieved indirectly.
9. We have already made a reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for inserting sub-section (6) of S. 63 of the Act. The expression used in S. 63, sub-section (6) is 'special permit'. The expression 'special' is used because the siad permit is subject to the limitation prescribed thereunder. Convenience of the public is the paramount consideration for grant of such a permit. Therefore, a long-drawn procedure is not prescribed. But that cannot change the nature and colour of the permit which in subtance is not prescribed. But that cannot change the nature and colour of the permit which in substance is a contract carriage permit. Section 63(6) cannot be read in isolation, but will have to be read together with the other provisions of the Act and harmoniously. From a combined reading of the various provisions it is clear that an application for special permit must first enter into a contract for use of a vehicle as a whole to carry specified passengers. Therefore, it will not be correct to say that a special permit is a class by itself and is not covered by the expression 'contract carriage' as defined by the Act.
10. Before the impugned decision was delivered by the appellate Tribunal, the procedure following for grant of a special permit was to enquire from the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation whether it could provide the vehicles. Therefore, a No Objection Certificate was called for from the Mahrashtra State Road Transport corporation before considering an application for the grant of permit under S. 63(6) of the Act. Such a procedure was devised by the authorities in the interest of the general public, as to avoid invocnvenience and hardship to the travelling public. It is an admitted position that the special contract carriage permit was asked for quo the routes and area covered by the scheme. If this is so, then no permit could have been granted unless a No Objection jCertificate was obtained from the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. In this view of the matter, it will have to be held that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal, which is solely based on the decision of the Karnataka High Court, is wholly unsustainable in law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
11. In the view which we have taken, it is not necessary to decide the contention based on the constitutional validity of S. 63(6) of the Act.
12. In the result, therefore, the Rule is made absolute in both these Petitions and the orders passesd by the Appelate Tribunal are set aside. However, in the circumstnces of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
13. Petition allowed.