The Regional Transport Officer (RTO) is subordinate to the Transport Commissioner within the meaning of Section 44-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the delegation of powers to the RTO to vary the conditions of a stage carriage permit is valid.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - DELEGATION OF POWERS - REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER - SUBORDINATE TO TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS OF PERMIT - GOVERNMENT ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, bus operators, challenged the validity of the Government Order (G.O.) authorizing the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) to vary the conditions of a stage carriage permit under Section 48-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). The Madras High Court had held that the delegation was ultra vires as the RTO was not subordinate to the Transport Commissioner. The Government contended that the RTO was subordinate to the Transport Commissioner and that the delegation was valid.
Finding of the Court:

The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the RTO was subordinate to the Transport Commissioner and that the delegation of powers to the RTO was valid. The Court interpreted the expression "any officer subordinate" in Section 44-A of the Act to include all eligible subordinate officers, not just those whose subordination was statutorily determined. The Court also held that the Government was not required to give notice to the petitioners before varying the bus route, as they had not filed any representations or appeared before the RTO. The Court further held that there was no right of appeal against a refusal to vary a permit, and that the Government had the power to entertain revisions even when there was a right of appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTO was subordinate to the Transport Commissioner within the meaning of Section 44-A of the Act? 2. Whether the delegation of powers to the RTO was valid? 3. Whether the Government was required to give notice to the petitioners before varying the bus route? 4. Whether there was a right of appeal against a refusal to vary a permit? 5. Whether the Government had the power to entertain revisions even when there was a right of appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "any officer subordinate" in Section 44-A of the Act includes all eligible subordinate officers, not just those whose subordination is statutorily determined. 2. The RTO is subordinate to the Transport Commissioner and the delegation of powers to the RTO was valid. 3. The Government was not required to give notice to the petitioners before varying the bus route, as they had not filed any representations or appeared before the RTO. 4. There is no right of appeal against a refusal to vary a permit. 5. The Government has the power to entertain revisions even when there is a right of appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

ORDER :

1. These two writ petitions raise the question as to the validity of the delegation made under G.O. No. 527, dated 14th February, 1953, whereunder the Regional Transport Officer has been empowered by the Government to dispose of applications under Section 48-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is a decision of a Divisional Bench of the Madras High Court, as yet unreported, which has held that the delegation ts ultra vires. It is stated that a number of writ petitions have raised the same question in this Court. These papers may be placed before the learned Chief Justice for orders as to these writs being posted before a Bench.

2. In pursuance of the above order, the petitions came on for hearing before the Divisional Bench consisting of Subba Rao, the then Chief Justice, and Jaganmohan Reddy, J.

3. The Order of the Court was pronounced by

SUBBARAO, C.J.*— These two writ petitions raise the question, namely, whether the Regional Transport Officer is subordinate to the Regional Transport Commissioner within the meaning of Section 44-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. Palani Pillai1 has held that, as no rules have been framed under the Act making the Regional Transport Officer subordinate to the Transport Commissioner, the said officer is not subordinate to the Transport Commissioner, and, therefore, the order issued by the Government of Madras empowering the Regional Transport Officer to extend the routes is bad. We have heard arguments at some length and we feel that the question raised is arguable and deserve to be finally set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court. It is represented to us that many writ petitions now pending in this Court depend upon the answer to the aforesaid question. We, therefore, refer the following question to a Full Bench—

“Whether the State Government can authorise the Regional Transport Officer to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the State Transport Authority under Sections 48-A, 51-A and 56-A of the Motor Vehicles Act?”

5. In pursuance of the above order, these petitions were posted before a Full Bench.

6. The Opinion of the Full Bench was pronounced by

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.**— The following question has been referred to the Full Bench:

8. The facts relevant for the consideration of the question may be stated: Respondents 3 and 4 are holders of two stage carriage permits on the route Gujjanagudla to Old Guntur, via. Stall Girls' School. By their applications, dated 5th May, 1956, they applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, for variation of the route by extending it to Nambur Railway Station. In his proceedings, dated 22nd August, 1956, the Regional Transport Officer refused the applications of respondents 3 and 4 to extend the route. The two operators thereupon preferred revision petitions to the Government of Andhra. By their Order, dated 24th October, 1956, the Government set aside the Order of the Regional Transport Officer and directed him to grant the extension of the route. The propriety of the Government Order is the subject-matter of these petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

9. About two decades ago, in the year 1939, the Central Legislature enacted the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1 1939) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the principal Act’). Since then the Central as well as the State Legislatures have made extensive amendments to the Act. The Act was amended by the Madras Legislature in its application to the Madras State by several Amendment Acts. For the purposes of this reference, it is sufficient to notice the amendments made by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act (XX of 1948), which may hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Amendment Act’.

10. The Act creat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document