Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.CHANDRA REDDY, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
K.Gopala Krishnayya - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-08-58
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - AMENDMENT - CONSTITUTIONALITY - SCHEME FOR NATIONALIZATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORT - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS - CERTIORARI - AVAILABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were carrying on motor transport business in Krishna District, filed petitions for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a common scheme published by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinate transport service in the public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were not ultra vires the Constitution and that the scheme was not invalid for any of the reasons adduced by the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were ultra vires the Constitution? 2. Whether the scheme was invalid for any of the reasons adduced by the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were not ultra vires the Constitution on the following grounds: a) The provisions did not constitute a colourable legislation as they were not enacted to circumvent any constitutional limitation or prohibition. b) The provisions did not fetter the future legislative discretion of the Parliament as they were subject to being repealed or modified by any subsequent legislation. c) The provisions did not delegate legislative power to a subordinate agency as the rules and orders made under the provisions were to come into effect notwithstanding any other law and not by repealing or modifying any other law. 2. The Court held that the scheme was not invalid for any of the reasons adduced by the petitioners on the following grounds: a) The State Transport undertaking was validly constituted and had the authority to initiate the scheme. b) The scheme was not ultra vires Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act as it contained the requisite opinion of the State Transport undertaking and was published in the Official Gazette and other prescribed manner. c) The delegation of the power to hear objections to the scheme to the Secretary of the Government was not a delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial functions as the functions entrusted to the Government under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act were administrative in nature.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed by several persons carrying on motor transport business in Krishna District for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a common scheme No. T6/10/57 dated 5-11-1957 published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette as approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G. 0. Ms. No. 58 Home (Transport IV) dated 7-1-1958 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part ii (Extraordinary) dated 9-1-1958. The State of Andhra Pradesh published a scheme, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinate transport service in the public interest to operate the transport services mentioned therein with effect from a date to he notified by the Government. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68-C of the Motor vehicles Act as amended by the Act 100 of 1956 which introduced Chapter IV-A into the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The transport service specified In the scheme covers all the routes till now operated by the petitioners. The petitioners filed. objections to the approval of the scheme by the Government. They were heard on 26-12-1957 and 27-12-1957 by the Secretary, Home and transport Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Meanwhile, the Government decided to establish a road transport corporation under the Central Act 64/1950 for the State of Andhra Pradesh and to transfer the assets of the Transport Department to the said State Transport Corporation. Pursuant to this, the Government constituted the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport corporation for the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 3 of the Central Act (64 of 1950 ). By G. O. Ms. 58, dated 7-1-1958, the scheme was approved by the governor of Andhra Pradesh without any modification and this was to come into force from 10-1-1958. By another order dated 11-1-1958, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation was empowered to take over the management of the existing Road transport Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and to enforce the scheme approved as aforementioned. It is at this stage that the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. Since all the petitions raise common questions of law and fact, they can be disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) TWO broad grounds are raised in support of these petitions (1) that the provisions of Chapter IV-A (Amending Act 100 of 1956) are ultra vires the constitution; and (2) even if that Chapter is intra vires, the scheme is vitiated by reason of the non-compliance with the procedure laid down by the act.
( 3 ) CHAPTER IV-A of Act 100 of 1956 is impugned on three grounds, namely, that it is a colourable legislation, that it constitutes a fetter on the power of the parliament to enact future legislations and that by Section 68-B of that Act the parliament had delegated its authority to a subordinate agency to repeal some of the existing statutes which is hit at by Articles 245 and 246 of the constitution.
( 4 ) TO appreciate the first point, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of Chapter IV-A. Section 68-B of that Act recites:"the provisions of this Chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law. "section 68-G (1) reads thus:"where in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68-F any existing permit is cancelled or the terms thereof are modified, there shall be paid by the State Transport undertaking to the holder of the permit compensation the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section 4 or 5 as the case may be. "the other sub-sections need not be set out as they are not material in the present context.
( 5 ) THE first ground of attack with re
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
