Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
Amaravathi Motor Transport Co., Amaravathi, by its President N. Hanumantharao
Versus
State of Andhra represented by its Chief Secretary at Kurnool
Writ Petns. Nos. 398, 418 of 1954 and 305 of 1955
Decided On : 25-01-1956
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - SUSPENSION - DELEGATION OF POWER - RULE 134-A (XI) OF MADRAS MOTOR VEHICLES RULES - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - OFFICIALS AND NON-OFFICIALS - RENEWED PERMIT - SUSPENSION - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a motor transport company, challenged the orders of the Government of Andhra confirming those of the Central Road Traffic Board, which in its turn, confirmed those of the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, cancelling the permits issued in respect of two motor vehicles owned by the company. The permits were cancelled for various offences, including unauthorized trips, overloading, and non-maintenance of trip sheets.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 134-A (xi) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which empowered the Regional Transport Authority to delegate its power to suspend a permit to its Secretary, was valid. However, the court also held that the Secretary could only suspend a permit that he had granted, and not one that had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The court further held that the constitution of the Regional Transport Authority, which consisted only of officials, was valid, as the Motor Vehicles Act gave the Government discretion to appoint officials or non-officials, or both, to the Authority. Finally, the court held that an order suspending a permit could not operate on a renewed permit.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 134-A (xi) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which empowered the Regional Transport Authority to delegate its power to suspend a permit to its Secretary, was valid. 2. Whether the constitution of the Regional Transport Authority, which consisted only of officials, was valid. 3. Whether an order suspending a permit could operate on a renewed permit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 134-A (xi) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules was valid because it was authorized by Section 44(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which empowered the Regional Transport Authority to delegate its powers and functions subject to such restrictions, limitations, and conditions as may be prescribed by the rules. The court also held that the rule was not inconsistent with Section 60(1) of the Act, which provided that the Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel or suspend it. 2. The court held that the constitution of the Regional Transport Authority, which consisted only of officials, was valid because Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act gave the Government discretion to appoint officials or non-officials, or both, to the Authority. 3. The court held that an order suspending a permit could not operate on a renewed permit because a renewed permit was substantially a new permit.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the Government, the Central Road Traffic Board, and the Regional Transport Officer cancelling the permits of the petitioner's motor vehicles.
SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- These three connected petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Government of Andhra confirming those of the Central Road Traffic Board, which in its turn, confirmed those of the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, cancelling the permits issued in respect of two motor vehicles MDG 910 and MDG 2000 owned by the Amravathi Motor Transport Co.
2. Writ Petitions Nos. 398 of 1954 and 305 of 1955 are filed to quash the orders made in regard to MDG 2000 and Writ Petition No. 418 of 1954 in respect of MDG 910.
3. The facts in the three Writ Petitions may be briefly stated.
4. W. P. No. 398 of 1954 : The Regional Transport Officer, Guntur by order dated 30-10-1953, suspended the permit of bus MDG 2000 for six weeks for performing an unauthorised extra trip to Nidamukkula at 1-45 P.M. on 1-8-1953. On appeal, the Central Road Traffic Board confirmed the said order. The revision, filed to the Government was dismissed. The term fixed in the permit expired on 31-7-1954 and the Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit of the petitioner.
5. W. P. No. 305 of 1955 : On 18-10-1954, the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, found on enquiry that, on 1-5-1954 at 6-25 P.M., near 20/6 mile on the Guntur Amaravathi road, bus MDG No. 2000 carried 36 passengers as against the seating capacity of 33. On that finding, the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, suspended the renewed permit for a period of one month. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the Central Road Traffic Board and the revision therefrom to the Government was also rejected.
6. W. P. No. 418 of 1954 : On 28-8-1953, the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, suspended the permit of Bus MDG No. 910 for one month for the offences of over-loading by two persons, non-issue of tickets, non-maintenance of trip sheet and for performing an unauthorised trip on 1-8-1953. On appeal, the Central Road Traffic Board confirmed the order. The Government also rejected the revision filed against the order of the Central Road Traffic Board. The permit expired on 31-7-1954 and It was subsequently renewed.
7. On the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions questioning the validity of the orders, which we would consider seriatim.
8. His first contention is that, under the Motor Vehicles Act, a judicial power to cancel permits was conferred on the Regional Transport Authority and it has no power to delegate the same to its Secretary the Regional Transport Officer.
But in a recent judgment in W.P. Nos. 271 and 272 of 1952 ((S) AIR 1956 Andhra 129) (A) a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (the Chief Justice) was a member held that Rule 134-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules empowering the Board to delegate to the Secretary its power under S. 47 of the Act to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit in cases where no objections or representations were received, was valid. There we had to consider the question now raised, namely, that the Board could not delegate its judicial functions to its Secretary. Nothing that has been said now compels us to take a different view.
But it is contended that the said rule, particularly sub-rule (xi), is in excess of the rule-making power of the Provincial Government. To appreciate this argument, the relevant provisions may be read :
"Section 44(5) : The Provincial Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorized in this behalf by rules made under S. 68, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules.
Section 60 : (1) The Transport Authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit.
Section 68 : (1) A Provincial Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Without prejudice to the gene
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
