Judgment : 1. The proceedings of the General Manager, TTD Transport, Tirupati, dated 03-08-2011, by which, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Technical Report submitted by the Committee on 01-08-2011, permission was accorded to allow Tirupati based Tempo Traveller vehicles, models of 2009 and later to ply on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads, while Tempo Travellers of the same model belonging to other States are not allowed due to lack of experience of these drivers on Ghat roads, are under challenge in all these writ petitions at the instance of either the owners of the motor vehicles or the drivers affected respectively. 2. The Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala appeared to have instructed the General Manager, TTD Transport and the Regional Transport Officer, Tirupati to inspect the Tempo Traveller vehicles and submit a Technical Report, as it was observed by the police and security department that the accidents involving such vehicles on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads are on the rise due to design problems in the brake system of these vehicles. The Committee in its Technical Report, dated 01-08-2011 stated that both the members considered the accidents data of these vehicles on ghat roads for the years 2009 to 2011 and heard the representative of the manufacturing company and the drivers and maxi cab associations. The Committee in its report felt that the brake system of the vehicles rolled out after December, 2008 has been upgraded and on inspecting a specified vehicle, the Committee found the brake system to have been strengthened as specified in the Report. The braking efficiency is also stated to have been improved due to increase of capacity of booster and overheating is said to have been reduced. The Committee also observed that majority of the accidents is due to inexperienced drivers of other States, namely, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, driving these vehicles on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads. Therefore, the Committee recommended to allow to operate Tempo Travellers of 2009 and later models of Tirupati based owners in the first phase, based on which experience, further course of action will be decided in regard to the models prior to 2009 and outside vehicles. 3. The above Report appeared to have resulted in Note orders by the joint Executive Officer of Tirumala, dated 02-08-2011, in pursuance of which, the impugned proceedings have been issued. 4. 3. The above Report appeared to have resulted in Note orders by the joint Executive Officer of Tirumala, dated 02-08-2011, in pursuance of which, the impugned proceedings have been issued. 4. The said proceedings are challenged herein claiming that the restriction amounted to deprivation of fundamental rights of the drivers and owners of the prohibited vehicles with reference to Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and it was claimed that the prohibited vehicles were being operated on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads since long without any basis for any such adverse inferences against them. A reference also has been made to Sections 97, 97-A and 97-B of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 questioning the jurisdiction of the Committee to recommend the manner in which they did. 5. The Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams in his counter-affidavits in various writ petitions stated that the management of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams was allowing all motor vehicles since long on the ghat roads without any restriction. But in the light of the analysis of the statistics and accidents in recent years, it was disclosed that the Tempo Traveller vehicles plying from other than Chittoor District and from outside States were involved in more accidents. Since the drivers of Chittoor District are frequent users of ghat roads, the Tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanams took a decision not to allow any vehicle other than those of Chittoor District after the Committee with the Regional Transport Officer, Tirupati and General Manager (Transport), Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams as members conducted several checks and inspections and submitted a Technical Report. Ghat road experience for the driver is very much essential, as frequent braking of the vehicle is required in ‘S’ turnings of the ghat road and the driver shall have to constantly monitor the air pressure in the brake system in order to keep the brakes effective. Only experienced local drivers can do that perfectly, which is evident from the accidents data of the year 2009 to 2011 issued by the Inspector of Police, Tirumala Traffic police station. Only experienced local drivers can do that perfectly, which is evident from the accidents data of the year 2009 to 2011 issued by the Inspector of Police, Tirumala Traffic police station. As ghat road of Tirumala is a private property of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, they are entitled to take a decision to restrict and regularize the movement of the vehicles and it is in the interests of safety of public and for protection of the lives of devotees that the Devasthanam used its discretion to take the decision without any vested interest and therefore, there can be no valid and tenable grounds to interfere with the order in question. 6. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Sri K. Nageswara Reddy, Sri E. Poorna Chander Rao, Sri V. Raghu, Sri Amrutha Sanjeeva, Sri Srinivas Ambati representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao and Sri P. Venkat Rao, learned counsel representing different petitioners in the writ petitions and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned special standing counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. 7. It is true that 10-1/3 square miles area around the temple of Lord Venkateswara in Tirumala Hills shall be the exclusive property of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams under Rule 196 of the Powers & Functions of T.T.D. Board issued in G.O.Ms. No.311, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 09-04-1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and the civic administration of Tirumala Hills area governed by Section 114 of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 shall be as per the relevant notifications issued by the Government from time to time extending any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 (presently the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994) with such modifications not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper for the purpose of adopting them to the Tirumala Hills area. While Tirumala Hills shall be deemed to be a village for the purposes of the said Statute and the Executive Officer of Tirumala Hills area shall be deemed to be the Sarpanch/Executive Officer or Executive Authority for that purpose, the purposes for which the Executive Officer may, by order, prohibit within Tirumala Hills area any activities subject to such rules as may be prescribed, were specified in sub-section (3) of Section 114. 8. 8. Then, coming to the powers and functions of the Board of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Section 97 refers to not only the powers conferred and functions entrusted by A.P. Act 30 of 1987, but also such other powers to be exercised and such other functions to be performed as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. While the Executive Officer shall be the Chief Administrative Officer of the Devasthanams under Section 109 of the Statute and Rule 216 of the Rules, he is made subject to the guidance and control of the Committee in exercising his general power to carry out the provisions of the Statute and the Committee constituted under Section 97-A exercises the powers and functions specified under Section 97-B, which include not only the powers conferred and functions entrusted by the Statute and those prescribed, but also the exercise of general superintendence and control over the administration of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams in conformity with the policy laid down by the Board. In so far as the other officers of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams are concerned, it is only subsection (2) of Section 109 that enables the Executive Officer to delegate any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to or duties imposed on him by or under that Chapter, to the Joint Executive Officer or Special Grade Deputy Executive Officer appointed under Section 106(1) or such other officer of the Devasthanams, as the Executive Officer may deem fit, subject to such restrictions and control as the Government may, by special or general order, lay down and also subject to such limitations and conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order of delegation. It has to be incidentally noted that under Rule 13(1) of the Rules, the powers of the Board of Trustees to lay down general lines of policy in accordance with A.P. Act 30 of 1987 and in pursuance thereof, include (a) transport including construction of roads and communications….., (f) safety to person and property….., and (h) such other matters of policy on general superintendence and review in relation to the administration of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams having regard to public interest and services and amenities to be provided to, and welfare and safety measures to be undertaken for pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. 9. Thus, a reference to the relevant provisions of the Statute and the Statutory Rules may indicate that the jurisdiction in respect of welfare safety measures to be undertaken for pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is vested with the Board under Section 97 and it is for the Board to lay down any general lines of policy concerning transport including construction of roads and communications and safety to person and property and welfare and safety measures to be undertaken for pilgrims, devotees and worshippers under Rule 13(1). The Board obviously does not appear to have been involved, in any manner, in the issuance of the impugned proceedings. 10. The Executive Officer may be the Chief Administrative Officer of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams under Section 109 or Rule 216, but he shall be subject to the guidance and control of the Committee in carrying out the provisions of Chapter XIV of A.P. Act 30 of 1987 under Section 109 or Rule 217. The Committee, as already stated, shall act in conformity with the policy laid down by the Board in respect of general superintendence and control over the administration of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams under Section 97-B (v) of A.P. Act 30 of 1987. The powers in this regard concerning welfare and safety measures to be undertaken in respect of pilgrims, devotees and worshippers or in respect of transport or safety to person and property not appearing to have been exercised by laying down any general policy guidelines by the Board, the Committee or the Executive Officer probably could not have claimed to be acting in conformity with such a policy laid down by the Board while the proceedings in question were issued. In fact, like the Board, the Committee or the Executive Officer also do not appear to have been involved, in any manner, in the issuance of the impugned proceedings. 11. That apart, when the Joint Executive Officer, or any other officer for that matter, could have exercised any of the powers conferred on or functions entrusted to or duties imposed on, the Executive Officer, only when there is a specific delegation under Section 109(2), the Joint Executive Officer or any Committee appointed by him or the General Manager authorized by him could not have exercised jurisdiction over matters within the province of the Board under Section 97 and Rule 13(1) without any such jurisdiction having been conferred on them in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The power of prohibition, which the Executive Officer has under Section 114 (3) or Rule 198 in respect of various matters, obviously does not include a matter of the nature covered by the impugned proceedings to trace any such power to him or to the Joint Executive Officer or other officers working under him. 12. Under the circumstances, other things apart and any merits in the proceedings notwithstanding, the action taken or proposed to be taken by the Joint Executive Officer or the Technical Committee or the General Manager, ultimately culminating in the impugned proceedings, dated 03-08-2011 have to be considered to be totally without jurisdiction in the absence of even any semblance of delegation of such authority to them by the Board or the Committee or the Executive Officer. The impugned proceedings have to fail solely on that ground itself. 13. The proceedings in question are said to be based on the Technical Report of the Committee of the Regional Transport Officer, Tirupati and General Manager (Transport), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, both of whom, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned special standing counsel assures to be competent and qualified automobile engineers to go into the question. 13. The proceedings in question are said to be based on the Technical Report of the Committee of the Regional Transport Officer, Tirupati and General Manager (Transport), Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, both of whom, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned special standing counsel assures to be competent and qualified automobile engineers to go into the question. While not expressing any opinion on the conclusions of the Committee about the better efficacy of the brake system in Tempo Traveller vehicles rolled out after December, 2008, it is obvious that the said braking efficiency appears to have been arrived at only on examination of one vehicle AP03 Y 6688 making it extremely doubtful whether it could be said that there was a sufficient examination of the comparable vehicles manufactured during different periods vis-à-vis their braking efficiency during operation on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads. It is true that some statistical data has been placed before the Court about three accidents in 2009, nine accidents in 2010 and three accidents in 2011, out of which, according to Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for one of the petitioners, item 3 of 2010 relates to a member of Sri Balaji Taxi Drivers and Owners Association, Tirumala and item 1 of 2011 relates to a vehicle of Chittoor District, which itself may run counter to the claims of such vehicles being more safe, but still the fact remains that out of the 15 accidents so reported, only two accidents appeared to be relating to Tirupati and Chittoor vehicles. It is not known whether the 15 accidents spread over three years reflect all the accidents that occurred on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads either way involving Tempo Travellers or the reasons for each of the accidents, more particularly whether all these accidents were the result of either deficiency in braking efficiency or deficiency in experience of the relevant drivers. That apart, the proceedings in question only did not allow Tempo Travellers of the same model belonging to other States said to be due to lack of experience of these drivers in ghat roads, but the complaint is that the vehicles of other districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh are also prohibited under the guise of these proceedings. That apart, the proceedings in question only did not allow Tempo Travellers of the same model belonging to other States said to be due to lack of experience of these drivers in ghat roads, but the complaint is that the vehicles of other districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh are also prohibited under the guise of these proceedings. When accidents were suspected to be due to inexperience of the drivers on ghat roads, it is also unintelligible as to how without verification of the experience of each of the drivers plying their vehicles on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads, mere year of make of Tempo Travellers will be a sufficient preventive from recurrence of accidents and it is not the claim that the identity or experience of the drivers of the vehicles is being checked while allowing any vehicles to ply on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads. It is also not known whether any other State in the country or District in the State do not have any roads similar in nature to Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads on which the vehicles were plying in the respective areas and as to how it could be a scientific conclusion to state that Tirupati based vehicles or Chittoor District based vehicles alone will be safe and secure for the pilgrims travelling on Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads. Without further replicating more reasons for considering the proceedings in question to have been not based on any intelligible and verifiable scientific data or criteria, towards any steps towards safeguarding the life and limb of the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers by restricting the vehicles or the drivers in the use of Tirumala-Tirupati ghat roads, a better exercise for sustaining a reasonable classification in this regard appears to be needed. 14. Incidentally, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also may have to be kept in view in imposition of any such restrictions, as Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes a driving licence issued under the Act effective throughout India and Section 46 of the said Act makes any registration of any motor vehicle under a certificate issued or in force under the said Act effective throughout India. The permits issued under that Act also by their very nature can be subject only to those restrictions which are specified in the permits themselves like extending the permits to all routes except prohibited in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The permits issued under that Act also by their very nature can be subject only to those restrictions which are specified in the permits themselves like extending the permits to all routes except prohibited in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 115 of the said Act appears to authorize only the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government to restrict the use of the vehicles if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, to prohibit or restrict the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified. Any prohibition or restriction concerning the use of motor vehicles registered and/or with the relevant permits or the driving by licensed drivers appears to be provided under only that provision and it may have to be examined whether either under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 or the Rules made thereunder or the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Rules made thereunder, such a power or jurisdiction can be presumed to be in existence in addition to or beyond the power to restrict the use of vehicles under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it may have also to be probably examined whether the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams shall have to be duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government if it were to exercise the said jurisdiction. While no conclusive opinion is being expressed on the absence of jurisdiction of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams in this regard in total, the probable application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder even to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams may appear to be illustrated by Rule 274 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, whereunder exemption from maintaining trip-sheets and trip-registers in respect of stage carriages is granted to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams by that rule, which might not have been probably necessary, if it were to be considered that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is plying its vehicles in its private property vested in it under Rule 196 of the Rules. Reference to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, is made with a view not to prevent any necessary action which the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams may have to take in this regard but only to caution to consider taking any such action only in accordance with law. 15. These observations apart, as already stated, the impugned proceedings are firstly without jurisdiction and secondly without the required comparative or dependable scientific data and are hence, unsustainable. On the material on record, the impugned proceedings suffer the vice of unjust discrimination and do not even remotely survive the test of reasonable classification based on any intelligible criteria. They have to be accordingly quashed, while not foreclosing the options of the 1st respondent from taking any permissible action in accordance with law to safeguard the safety of pilgrims, worshippers and devotees visiting Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. 16. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, dated 03-08-2011 of the General Manager, TTD Transport, Tirupati in Roc.No.TG4/392/GM/TTD/2011 are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed without costs, while these orders do not stand in the way of the 1st respondent taking any permissible action in this regard in accordance with law to safeguard the safety and welfare of pilgrims, worshippers and devotees visiting Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.