Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY
K.V.RAMANA - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BNILDINGS DEPT, SECRETARIAT., HYDERABAD - Respondent
W.P. No. 5407/85
Decided On : 09-25-86
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy
Held : Rule 282 [2] (ii) is not ultravires of the rule making power of the Constitution. Rule 282 is a rule which refines B town service and it is not a rule that curtails the powers of the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority. All that rule 282 says is that any route which extends more than 8 Kilometres beyond the limits of a municipality or a town should not be considered to be a town service unless the Transport Commissioner, by special permission permits it to be so. In deciding what constitutes a town service Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act does not give any power or jurisdiction to the Regional Transport Authority. The power, which has been given to the Regional Transport Authority, is to grant or refuse to pant the variation of an existing permit. The decision relating to the Characterisation of these routes is left by the Legislature to be dealt with by the rule making power conferred on the State Government under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sec. 68(1). Which gives power to the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, Clearly authorities the making of these quasi legislative rules like Rule 282. The purpose of Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide for the grant of transport permits by the transport authorities keeping in view the interesting of the travelling public. That purpose requires the classification of these routes. In classifying some of the routes as town service routes, the State Government is not in any way interfering with the powers of the Regional Transport Authority which that body derived from the provisions of Chapter-IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. The quasi- judicial powers of the transport authorities are not interfered with by the Transport Commissioner acting under Rule 282 (2) (ii). Section 47, which speaks of the interests of the travelling public, provides sufficient safeguards against the possible abuse of power by the Transport Commissioner. Accordingly the Rule is not unconstitutional and does not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution.
W.P. Dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was the holder of a transport permit plying on the so called town service route of Vizianagaram to Gantyada. He had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram, for variation of his permit to ply from Vizianagram New Puma to Pentasreeramapuram via gantyada. The Regional Transport Authority, Vizianagaram, by its resolution dated 21-3-1983, rejected this application of the petitioner. Aga inst that order of the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner had filed an appeal in R. P. No. 72 of 1983 to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The state Transport Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 21-11-1984, allowed the petitioner s appeal and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant the variation of the permit sought for by the petit- oner. The Regional transport Authority, by its resolution dated 3-4-1985, approved the proposal to grant variation of the route sought for by the petitioner, but wrote to the transport Commissioner for his concurrence. The Transport Commissioner, by his communication dated 20-5-1985 refused his consent to the proposal of the Regional Transport Authority contained in its resolution dated 3-4-1985. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the proceedings of the transport Commissioner dated 20-5-1985 refusing his concurrence and the validity of Rule 282 (2) (ii) of ths Motor Vehicles Rules, which gives power and jurisdiction to the Transport Commissioner to make the above order.
( 2 ) BEFORE considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to set out, in brief, a few relevant provisions of the motor VEHICLES ACT, 1988. Chapter IV of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, with which we are now concerned, prordes by Section 44 for the constitution of Transport authorities. That section says :"the State Government shall, by notification in the Official gazette, constitute for the State a Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3) and shall, in like manner, constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas (in this Chapter referred to as regions) as may be specified in the notifications in respect of each regional Transport Authority, the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such authorities. "now the meaning of Section 44 is that the authorties called State Transport authority and the Regional Transport Authority, if constituted in accordance with a valid notification of the State Government. , derive their powers and functions from the enumeration made in Chapter IV of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. In other words, the Regional Transport Authority, validly constituted under the Act, is not dependent for the exercise of its powers on the Governmental notification. The extent of its powers is already defined by the enumeration to be found in Chapter IV of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. Now, in Chapter IV of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, it is section 57 (8) that we are primarily concerned with. Before that, we may notice that Section 45 of that Chapter provides for receipt of applications to be made for the grant of permits, while Sec. 46 provides for the grant of stage carriage permits and Section 47 prescribes I the procedure to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in Considering the applications for stage carriage permits. Under Section S7 (8),-tfce statute empowers the Regional Transport Authority to vary the condition s 0f any;permit other than a temporary permit, by the inclusoin of a new route or routes or a new area or, in the case of a stage carriage permit, by incresing the number of trips above the specified maximum, or by altering the route covered by it, or in the case of a contract carriage permit or a public property, by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit. Now the petitioners application for variation of his permit au
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
