Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALA KRISHNAN NAIR, NARASIMHAM, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Sheik Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-04-63
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 44 (2) - STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - COMPOSITION - JURISDICTION - WANT OF JURISDICTION - IRREGULAR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - DISTINCTION - CONSENT OR WAIVER - EFFECT - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ISSUANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were transport operators who had their permits suspended by the Regional Transport Authority. They appealed to the State Transport Authority, which confirmed the suspension orders. The petitioners then filed revision petitions before the Government, which were dismissed. They filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the orders of the State Transport Authority and the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the orders of the State Transport Authority were without jurisdiction as they were passed by the Chairman sitting and hearing the appeals alone, contrary to the provisions of Section 44 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by Act 100 of 1956. The Court held that the composition of the State Transport Authority is statutorily fixed and that the Chairman and the two members should hear and dispose of matters that have to be decided by the Tribunal under the various provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the petitioners were not precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by reason of their not having raised objection before the State Transport Authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of the State Transport Authority were without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the petitioners were precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by reason of their not having raised objection before the State Transport Authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the orders of the State Transport Authority were without jurisdiction. 2. No, the petitioners were not precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by reason of their not having raised objection before the State Transport Authority.
Final Decision: The High Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the State Transport Authority and the Government.
( 1 ) THESE petitions have been posted before a Full Bench because of a conflict of opinion between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court, namely Ramamurthy Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 Andh Pra 344 and Narasimha Rao v. State of Madras (Now Andhra) (Unreported Judgment in W. P. 462 of 1953, D/- 29/07/1955 ).
( 2 ) ONE of these petitions, W. P. No. 84 of I960, was referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice Seshachalapathi. The Division Bench, consisting of Mr. Justice Jaganmohan Reddy and Mr. Justice Ananthanarayana Ayyar, referred that petition and the connected cases for the decision of a Full Bench.
( 3 ) THESE petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, are for the issue of Writs of Certiorari to quash the orders of the State Government under the Motor Vehicles Act. All of them raise identical questions for determination.
( 4 ) IT is enough to set out the material facts in W. P. No. 84 of 1960. The petitioner therein is a transport operator having a stage carriage permit. On a check by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 9/06/1957, his vehicle was found to be overloaded. The Regional Transport Authority called for his explanation, and by its order dated 21/08/1957, directed the suspension of his permit for three months. The petitioner filed an appeal to the State Transport Authority. The Chairman of the State Transport Authority, in his order dated 31/09/1958, confirmed the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition before the Government. That revision petition was dimissed by the Government on 18/01/1960. The Writ petition is directed against the order of the Government. The other Writ Petitions arise out of similar facts.
( 5 ) THE main point raised in these writ petitions is that the orders of the State Transport Authority were without jurisdiction as they were passed by the Chairman sitting and hearing the appeals alone and, therefore, contrary to the provisions of Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by Act 100 of 1956.
( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the correct position, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The Act was enacted by the Central Legislature in the year 1939 for regulating motor traffic. Since then it has been amended from time to time both by the Central Legislature and by the State Legislature. The Act was also amended by the Madras Legislature in its application to the then composite State of Madras. The Act, as amended by the Madras Legislature, governed the territories comprised in the State of Andhra by virtue of the provisions of the Andhra State Act
( 7 ) THE Act prescribes an elaborate procedure for the registration of motor transport. It contains ten Chapters. To carry put the objects of the Act, the State Government is authorised to create a hierarchy of Tribunals, such as, the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority.
( 8 ) CHAPTER IV, with which we are now concerned, is headed Control of Transport Vehicles. Section 44, which occurs in this Chapter, empowers the State Government to constitute a State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities, for notified regions with specified powers and functions.
( 9 ) SECTION 44 (2), which is the material provision, runs as follows:"a State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority shall consist of such number of officials and non-officials as the State Government may think fit to appoint. . . . . Provided that if the State Government thinks fit, the State Transport Authority may consist of a single official" (Inserted by Madras Act XX of 1948 amending the Act in its application to the Madras State ).
( 10 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the Madras Government made certain rules, known as "the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940". Rule 144 thereof, as it stood before its recent amendment in F
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
