Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, K.SUBBA RAO
D.K.KRISHNAN - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY, R.T.A.CHITTOOR - Respondent
Decided On : 10-18-55
The Madras Motor Vehicles Rules were issued by the Governor during the state of proclamation under section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The rules continued to have force unless they were repealed or otherwise ceased to have any effect. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, continued the existing laws and their adaptation. The rules made by the Governor during the state of proclamation must be deemed to have been made by the Provincial Government. Though by reason of the provisions of the Adaptation of Laws Order "State Government" is substituted for "provincial Government" in section 68 of the Act, under Para 17 of the said order, the said adaptation shall not render invalid the rules duly made before the appointed day. Even if there is any lacuna, the court can adapt the rules as made by the authority substituted for the Governor. Though the rules were made by the Governor in the exercise of his discretion, the court can adapt the rules as if made by the State government under Section 68 of the Act. If so under Art. 372 of the constitution of India, the rules being laws in force before the commencement of the constitution, continue to be in force, till altered by a competent authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage-carriage permit holder, filed two writ petitions challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority refusing to renew his permit and directing him to pay tax due under the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931. The petitioner contended that the rules empowering the Regional Transport Authority to delegate its powers to the Secretary and prescribing the payment of tax due as a condition of every permit were invalid on various grounds, including that they were issued by the Governor during the state of proclamation under section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and had ceased to have force after two years from the date of the proclamation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rules continued to have force unless they were repealed or otherwise ceased to have any effect. The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, continued the existing laws and their adaptation. The rules made by the Governor during the state of proclamation must be deemed to have been made by the Provincial Government. Though by reason of the provisions of the Adaptation of Laws Order "State Government" is substituted for "provincial Government" in section 68 of the Act, under Para 17 of the said order, the said adaptation shall not render invalid the rules duly made before the appointed day. Even if there is any lacuna, the court can adapt the rules as made by the authority substituted for the Governor. Though the rules were made by the Governor in the exercise of his discretion, the court can adapt the rules as if made by the State government under Section 68 of the Act. If so under Art. 372 of the constitution of India, the rules being laws in force before the commencement of the constitution, continue to be in force, till altered by a competent authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the rules empowering the Regional Transport Authority to delegate its powers to the Secretary and prescribing the payment of tax due as a condition of every permit were invalid on the ground that they were issued by the Governor during the state of proclamation under section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and had ceased to have force after two years from the date of the proclamation? 2. Whether the rules were invalid on the ground that they were not laid before the legislature as required by section 133 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rules were not invalid on the ground that they were issued by the Governor during the state of proclamation under section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and had ceased to have force after two years from the date of the proclamation. The court also held that the rules were not invalid on the ground that they were not laid before the legislature as required by section 133 of the Act.
Final Decision: Both the petitions failed and were dismissed with costs in Writ petition No. 271 of 1952. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/.
( 2 ) THE first contention is that the rules including Rule 160-C of the Madras motor Vehicles Rules were issued by the Governor during the pendercy of the governor s rule and therefore, they ceased to have any force under sub-section (4) of section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, after two years from the date of the proclamation. To appreciate this contention, some of the relevant facts may be stated. On 30th October, 1939, the Governor issued a proclamation under section 93 of the Government of India Act assuming to himself all the powers of the Legislature and the Executive government. On 30-3-1940, in exercise of the powers conferred under the various sections of the act, the Governor issued the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1940, to come into force on 1st April 1940. The proclamation ceased to have effect on 30-10-1946.
( 3 ) THE question is whether the rules issued by the Governor during the state of proclamation expired after two years from the date of the withdrawal of the proclamation. The answer to this question would depend upon the interpretation of the relevant provisions of section 93 of the Government of India Act and the s cope of the proclamation issued thereunder. The material portion of section 93 of the Government of India Act reads:"if at any time the Governor of a Province is satisfied that a situation has arisen in. which the Government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he may by proclamation (a) declare that his functions shall, to such extent as may be specified in the proclamation, be exercised by him in his discretion ; (b)come to himself all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by any Pfovincial body" or authority and any such Proclamation may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part of the operation of any provisions of this Act
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
