1. Application for variation of stage carriage permit conditions — Rejection by Regional Transport Officer — Reversal by State Government in revision under Section 64A, Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 143
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
29th April, 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
A. St. Arunachalam Pillai, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Southern Roadways Ltd., and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setelvad, Attorney-General for India (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him), for Appellant; M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and N. R. Govindachari, Advocates and Mr. G. Gopalkrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat & Co., for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, N.R.GOVINDACHARI, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, GAGRAT JANEDRA LAL, J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, N.R.GOVINDACHARI, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY
The expression "any officer subordinate" in Section 44A of the Motor Vehicles Act includes officers who are administratively subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner, allowing the State Government to delegate statutory powers to them even if specific rules under Section 133A have not been framed.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 44A, 48A, 64A, and 133A - Delegation of power to vary permit conditions - Subordination of officers - Whether the expression "any officer subordinate to him" in Section 44A includes officers who are administratively subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner, even in the absence of statutory rules framed under Section 133A - If the Regional Transport Officer is authorized to exercise powers of the State Transport Authority under Section 44A, the State Government in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 64A can pass orders directing such variation. (Paras 6, 13, 14, 15)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 64A - Power of the State Government to pass orders in revision does not include original jurisdiction vested elsewhere, but it allows the Government to substitute an order that the subordinate authority had the jurisdiction to pass. (Para 6)
(C) Interpretation of "Subordinate" - In the absence of rules framed under Section 133A, any officer who is subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner in any way, including administrative subordination, falls within the ambit of "any officer subordinate" under Section 44A. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a permit holder for a stage carriage, applied to the Regional Transport Officer for a variation of the route. The application was rejected. On a revision petition, the State Government set aside the rejection and granted the variation. The respondent challenged this order, contending that the Regional Transport Officer lacked the jurisdiction to vary permit conditions, as such power was vested in the State Transport Authority under Section 48A, and consequently, the State Government could not grant the variation in revision.
Findings of Court:
The Regional Transport Officer was administratively subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner. Under Section 44A, the State Government can authorize any officer subordinate to the Commissioner to exercise powers of any other authority prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the notification empowering the Regional Transport Officer to exercise powers of the State Transport Authority under Section 48A was valid.
Issues: Whether the delegation of power to the Regional Transport Officer to vary the conditions of a permit was valid under Section 44A, and whether the State Government could grant such variation under its revisional powers in Section 64A.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "any officer subordinate" in Section 44A is wide and encompasses administrative subordination. The lack of statutory rules under Section 133A does not preclude the State Government from delegating powers to an administratively subordinate officer. Once the Regional Transport Officer is validly empowered to vary permit conditions, the State Government can exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 64A to grant such variation.
Result: Appeal allowed, case remanded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- transport law
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Whether Regional Transport Officer had jurisdiction to vary permit conditions and whether State Government could grant such variation under revisional jurisdiction under Section 64A, Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 )
3. Revisional power under Section 64A cannot substitute original jurisdiction lacking in the subordinate officer; administrative subordination suffices for delegation under Section 44A absent contrary statutory rules. (Para 5 , 6 , 13 , 14 )
4. Power to vary permit conditions under Section 44A can be delegated to any officer administratively subordinate to the Transport Commissioner, provided no statutory rules specify otherwise. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed — Judgments of single Judge and appellate Court set aside — Case remanded to High Court for rehearing of the writ petition. (Para 16 , 30 )
6. Does the State Government's revisional power under Section 64A allow it to grant relief that the subordinate officer lacked jurisdiction to grant?
No. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 64A allows the Government to satisfy itself of the legality, regularity, or propriety of an order, but it cannot exercise original jurisdiction vested elsewhere or substitute an order that the subordinate authority had no jurisdiction to pass. (Para 6 )
7. Does the term any officer subordinate in Section 44A of the Motor Vehicles Act include officers who are only administratively subordinate to the Transport Commissioner?
Yes. In the absence of specific rules framed under Section 133A(3) defining statutory subordination, any officer who is subordinate to the Transport Commissioner in any way, including administrative subordination, falls within the ambit of Section 44A. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. Can a party raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction in a writ petition if it was not included in the original petition?
Yes, if the plea goes to the root of the matter and is based on a subsequent declaration of law by the High Court, the court may allow the party to rely on that decision. (Para 5 )
Judgment
IMAM, J. (delivering the majority judgment on behalf of B. P. Sinha, C.J.I., himself, Sarkar and Shah, JJ.) : This appeal is on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court as in its opinion it involved a substantial question of law to the effect "whether the delegation to the Regional Transport Officer of the power to vary the conditions of a permit is valid". The appellant is the proprietor of Sri Vinayagar Transports. Woriyu, Tiruchirapalli. He held a permit to ply his bus on the route Tiruchirapalli Mainguard Gate to Tiruchirapalli Railway Station via Palakarai and Round Tana. He applied on July 19, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer, Tirucharapalli for variation of the route so as to ply his bus between Mainguard Gate and Golden Rock via Palakarai, Round Tana, Tiruchirapalli Railway Station and retrace again to Round Tana and thence to Golden Rock. The Regional Transport Officer notified this application for variation and called for objections. The appellant s application and the objections thereon were heard on July 15, 1955, but the Regional Transport Officer rejected the application. The appellant filed a revision petition before the Government of Madras under S. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act, S. 64A having been introduced into that Act by the Legislature of the State of Madras. The Madras Government after having heard objections to the revision petition, by its order dated December 28, 1955, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and directed the grant of the variation in the permit of the appellant as prayed for by him. Against the order of the Madras Government the respondent, the Southern Roadways (Private) Ltd., hereinafter called the respondent, filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Madras High Court on January 2, 1956, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Madras.
2. When the petition came up for hearing before Rajagopalan, J., the respondent raised a plea which was not taking in the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of the effect that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to grant the variation asked for by the appellant and the Govt. had likewise no jurisdiction to grant in revision what the Regional Transport Officer himself could not have granted. This plea was made on account of a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955, arrived at since the filing of the petition, wherein it was held that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with an application for variation of the conditions of a permit. Rajagopalan, J., following the decision in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955 held that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant s application for variation and that it followed that the Government of Madras had equally no jurisdiction to grant the variation on a revision petition filed against the order of the Regional Transport Officer. The learned Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Government of Madras dated December 28, 1955, without going into the other contentions raised by the respondent in its petition under Art. 226. The appellant appealed against the decision of Rajagopalan. J. Although in the appeal the correctness of the decision in Writ Appeal No. 197 of 1955 was questioned it was not pressed because of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1956 decided on April 12, 1957: (FB), Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. Palani Pillai). The argument in the present case therefore proceeded on the footing that the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant s application for variation.
3. In the High Court on behalf of the appellant it was urged that the respondents has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer and therefore could not at a later stage obtain the discretiona
