IMPORTANT POINT
Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A(6)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, are held to be intra vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 2(4), 2(7), 72, 74, 84, 86, 88, 93-Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989-Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A(6)(f)-Validity of Rules-Power to detain vehicles during transit-Distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage-Whether High Court was right in holding that travelling party as a whole need not have a common purpose for their travel and it was sufficient if they had a common destination-(No)-High Court was not right in declaring ultra vires the Rules framed by State Government-Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A(6)(f) are held to be intra vires of the Act.
       Held : The distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage permit as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the two types of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If such a construction is put then there would be no distinction between stage carriage or contract carriage permits. If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a Stage Carriage with corridor restriction. Stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas a contract carriage is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to another having the same purpose. High Court was not right in holding that the travelling party as a whole need not have a common purpose for their travel and it was sufficient if they had a common destination. The view taken runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari & Anr. and Nirmala Jagdish Chandra Kabra cases (supra) and, therefore, bad in law. High Court was not right in declaring ultra vires the Rules framed by the State Government providing that the party hiring the contract carriage vehicle should, not only, have the intention of travelling to the same destination but should also have the common purpose of travelling as well. In Rule 297-A(1)(c) common purpose has been defined to mean the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service vehicles to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social, religious, political and the like, or to go to a pligrimage or visit to place of tourist s interest or both. That it would not include the intention or the act of such persons merely travelling from one common point to another. This Rule framed by the State Government does not run counter to the provisions of Section 2(7) of the Act either in its intent or in its expression. The rule is in consonance with the intent of Section 2(7) of the Act. The same has been framed to fulfill the object with which Section 2(7) has been enacted. Any other interpretation would obliterate the distinction between a stage carriage permit and a contract carriage permit. (Para 14)
       Rule 297-A(6)(f) provides for drawing up of an agreement in writing, providing therein the list of all the members of the hiring party giving particulars of their names, father s/husband s name, age, full address, the period for which the vehicle is engaged, places to be visited etc. and "the nature of the common purpose of the journey". This Court in Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari & Anr. (supra) while interpreting Section 2(7) of the Act has held that the contract entered between the parties shall be prior and persons who are to be carried shall also be known prior to the journey. Similarly, in Nirmala Jagdish Chandra Kabra case (supra) it has been held that the permit which grants the contract for carriage of the passengers should contain the names of the passengers to be carried from one destination to another without picking up or dropping the passengers en-route. Contract may be express or implied as contemplated by Section 2(7) but the names of the passengers to be carried have to be settled prior to undertaking the journey. Rule 297-A(6)(f) does not go beyond the purview of the Act. Rather it carries out the purpose of the Act. Essentially it provides for settling the names of the passengers undertaking the journey under an agreement for hiring a public service vehicle. Passengers who are to be carried are to be known prior to the journey as the definition of contract carriage in Section 2(7) includes the words "for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein". These words clearly show that there must be a prior contract and the passengers shall also be settled in advance. High Court erred in striking down Rule 297-A(6)(f). For the reasons stated above both the Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A (6)(f) are held to be intra vires of the Act and the findings recorded by the High Court to the contrary are set aside. (Paras 16 & 17)
       (ii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 2(43), 88(9) and 88(14)-Grant of all India tourist permit-Such permits would be exclusively governed by Rules framed by the Central Government or the conditions prescribed by the Central Government-State Government would have no jurisdiction to either frame the Rules or prescribe conditions for the all India tourist permits.
       Held : From the conjoint reading of sub-sections (9), (11) and (14), referred to above, it is abundantly clear that it is the Central Government alone which has been authorised to frame the Rules as well as to prescribe the conditions for the purposes of all-India tourist vehicles. The power to make rules under Sections 95 and 96 would not include the power to frame rules applicable to all-India tourist permit which is exclusively vested in the Central Government. The power to frame rules and prescribe conditions for the all-India tourist permit is exclusively vested in the Central Government and the High Court was right in holding that the State Government would have no jurisdiction to either frame the Rules or prescribe conditions for the all-India tourist permits. Such permits would be exclusively governed by the Rules framed by the Central Government or the conditions prescribed by the Central Government. The judgment of the High Court in so far as it has held that it is the Rules framed by the Central Government only which would be applicable to all-India tourist permits and not the Rules framed by the State Government is upheld. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-State of Andhra Pradesh & Others have filed these appeals challenging the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court wherein it has struck down Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A(6)(f) of The Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the State Rules ) being ultra vires the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench has also held that the rules framed by the State Government under sections 95 and 96 of the Act and the further conditions prescribed in section 74 of the Act are not applicable to all-India tourist permit vehicles.

2. Original writ petitioners, respondents herein, are either the holders of contract carriage permits granted under Section 74 of the Act or holders of all-India tourist permits granted under Section 88 of the Act. The checking officials seized and detained the vehicles being of the opinion that the vehicles were being used as Stage Carriages. This action of the authorities was challenged by the respondents by filing a set of writ petitions which were disposed of by a Division Bench on 12th September, 1995. Vires of the Rules were not challenged in these writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed and it was held that the authorities had the power to detain vehicles during transit as and when any violation of the rules was found at the time of checking. The vehicles were again seized and detained and thereafter the respondents filed the present set of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 185(e)(v), 297-A(1)(c), 297-A (2)(b) read with 297-A(6)(b)(i) and 297-A(6)(f) of the Rules State being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India and the Act. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the validity of Rules 185(e)(v), 297-A(2)(b) and 297-A(6)(b)(i). The respondents have not carried appeals to challenge the part of the judgment by which the High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Rules, referred to above.

3. Section 2(4) of the Act defines the State Carriage. Section 2(7) defines the Contract Carriage. Chapter V deals with the control of the transport vehicles. Section 72 vests the Regional Transport Authority with the power to grant State carriage permit [or refuse it] subject to the Rules framed and attach any one or more of the conditions mentioned under Section 72(2) of the Act. Section 74 enables the concerned authority to grant contract carriage permit. Section 84 envisages the general conditions attaching to all permits. Section 86 vests the authority with the power to cancel or suspend the permits. Section 88 provides for validation of permits used outside the region in which it is granted. Section 88(9) enables the State Transport Authority to grant all-India tourist permits subject to the Rules framed by the Central Government under clause 14 of Section 88 for the whole of India or in such contiguous States, not less than 3 in number, including the State in which the permit is issued, as per choice indicated in the application. The provisions of Sections 73, 74, 80 to 86 and Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall as far as may be apply in relation to such permits. Section 88(11) lays down the condition of every permit granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88. Section 88(11)(iii) empowers the Central Government to prescribe other conditions of permit. Sub-section (14)(a) of Section 88 empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of section 88. Section 95 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules as to Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages and the conduct of passengers in such vehicles. Section 96 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of Chapter V to carry into effect the provisions of the said Chapter.

4. The High Court held that reading of Section 2(7) indicated that the comm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 638

IMPORTANT POINTRules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A(6)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, are held to be intra vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A(6)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, are held to be intra vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.