Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE
S.China Khader Valli - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 04-14-66
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 38, 70 - ANDHRA PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLE RULES, 1964 - RULE 429 - VALIDITY - TAXI-METER TO AUTO-RICKSHAW - REQUIREMENT - REASONABLENESS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of auto-rickshaws, challenged the validity of Rule 429 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1964, which required them to have taxi-meters fixed to their vehicles for the issuance of a fitness certificate. They argued that the rule was ultra vires of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and unreasonable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 429 was not ultra vires of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it fell within the ambit of regulating the equipment of motor vehicles. The court also found that the rule was not unreasonable, as it was not partial, unjust, or oppressive.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 429 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1964, is ultra vires of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? 2. Whether Rule 429 is unreasonable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, empowers the State Government to make rules regulating the construction, equipment, and maintenance of motor vehicles. Rule 429, which requires taxi-meters to be fixed to auto-rickshaws, falls within the ambit of regulating the equipment of motor vehicles. 2. A rule or bye-law cannot be unreasonable merely because the Court thinks that it goes further than is prudent or necessary or convenient or because it is not accompanied by a qualification or an exception which some Courts may think ought to be there.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that Rule 429 was valid and reasonable.
( 1 ) THESE five Writ Petitions raise a common question of law and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by one common judgment.
( 2 ) THEY arise in the following circumstances. The petitioners are the owners of contract carriages known as auto-rickshaws. They were granted permits with some conditions attached to the same. These conditions however did not include any condition to have a taxi-meter to the auto-rickshaw. At the time of issuing a fitness certificate, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority insisted that the petitioners should have taxi-meters fixed to their auto-rickshaws and stated that, without such taxi-meters, the fitness certificate will not be issued. Since this notice was given in pursuance of the resolution passed by the State Transport Authority through the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioners did not consider it worthwhile to carry the matter in appeal. The contention of the petitioners therefore, is that, under the provision of law and the rules, the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority cannot insist on having a taxi-meter to an auto-rickshaw before issuing any fitness certificate and, since the Secretary is insisting upon it against the law, these petitions are filed seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Guntur not to insist upon the fixation of a taxi-meter to auto-rickshaws for the purpose of issuing a fitness certificate.
( 3 ) THE principal contentions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners are two-folds; firstly, it was contended that the Rule 429 of the A. P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the Rules) is ultra virus of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act); and secondly, that the said rule being unreasonable is bad in law.
( 4 ) NOW, in regard to the first contention, Section 22 of the Act enjoins that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with Chapter III and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.
( 5 ) SECTION 38 of the Act, which is more relevant for the purpose of this enquiry relates to the certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. Omitting the portion which is not relevant, that Section is as follows:-" (1 ). Subject to the provisions of Sec. 39, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Sec. 22, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form H as set forth in the First Schedule issued by the prescribed authority, to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made thereunder. Where the prescribed authority refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. " (2) xx xx xx xx (3 ). The issuing authority or other prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness, at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter IV shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained. (4) xx xx xx xx
( 6 ) WHAT was argued in view of these two Sections was that, under Section 38 of the Act, a vehicle would not be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness to the effect that the vehicle complies with all the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made th
AI
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
