1960 Supreme(Cal) 226

High Court Of Calcutta
Sinha, J.
Naib Transport (Private) Ltd - Appellants
Vs
Regional Transport Authority Calcutta Region - Respondents
Decided on: Nov 17, 1960

An order under section 58a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, granting a permit to a local authority, is not valid if it is not made by the Governor in accordance with the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - S. 58A - GRANT OF PERMIT TO LOCAL AUTHORITY - ORDER UNDER - VALIDITY - IMPLIED REPEAL - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 14, 166 - DISCRIMINATION - AUTHENTICATION OF ORDER - SUFFICIENCY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were the owners of buses plying on route No. 12c in Calcutta. In 1954, an agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta, whereby the petitioners and certain other permit-holders withdrew their buses from route No. 12c to route No. 33. In 1956, the Motor Vehicles Act was amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956, which inserted a new chapter, being chapter IVA, in the said Act, containing special provisions relating to Nationalisation of transport and the creation of a State Transport Undertaking. The Directorate of Transportation, Government of West Bengal, prepared a scheme under section 68c of the said Act, for the purpose of taking over certain routes in Calcutta, including No. 12c, to be operated by the State Transport Undertaking, to the complete exclusion of other persons. The said scheme was published in the Calcutta Gazette dated 22nd August, 1957. Purporting to act under the said scheme, the respondent No. 6 passed an order taking over route No. 12c in Calcutta, to the exclusion of all passenger services on and from the 1st April, 1960. The petitioners challenged the said scheme and the approval thereof by Sri R. Gupta, an Officer of the Transport Department of the Government of West Bengal, on the ground that Sri R. Gupta was himself an officer of the State Transport Undertaking and as such, was a biassed person. A rule was issued on the 18th March, 1960. The matter was heard by G. K. Mitter, J., and by an order dated 31st March, 1960 the rule was made absolute and a writ in the nature of certiorari was issued, quashing the order of the respondent No. 6, regarding the implementation of the said scheme dated 17th August, 1957 and/or 26th September, 1957 in relation to route No. 12c in Calcutta. Other appropriate writs were also issued preventing the said respondent from taking over route No. 12c in terms of the purported scheme. The petitioners made an application for a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the Directorate of Transportation, Government of West Bengal, to forthwith recall or withdraw their buses from route No. 12c in Calcutta and I or forbear from running its buses in the said route in any manner whatsoever.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that no order had been made under section 58a of the said Act, on the 14th August, 1956 or on any other date, and therefore the permits granted thereunder on the 11th September, 1956 were invalid. The court further held that upon the coming into operation of chapter IVA of the said Act, on the 30th December, 1956, section 58a of the said Act must be taken to have been impliedly repealed. The court also held that if section 58a is to be considered as still operative, then it is ultra vires the Constitution, being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether an order had been made under section 58a of the said Act, on the 14th August, 1956 or on any other date? 2. Whether upon the coming into operation of chapter IVA of the said Act, on the 30th December, 1956, section 58a of the said Act must be taken to have been impliedly repealed? 3. Whether if section 58a is to be considered as still operative, then it is ultra vires the Constitution, being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that no order had been made under section 58a of the said Act, on the 14th August, 1956 or on any other date, and therefore the permits granted thereunder on the 11th September, 1956 were invalid. The court relied on the fact that there was no evidence before it to show that the Governor had passed the order. The court also relied on the fact that the order that had been communicated had never been made and was a document having no value whatsoever, apart from a false suggestion that such an order was made on the 14th August, 1956 and signed by Mr. Talukdar. 2. The court held that upon the coming into operation of chapter IVA of the said Act, on the 30th December, 1956, section 58a of the said Act must be taken to have been impliedly repealed. The court relied on the fact that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 was enacted with the intention of nationalisation of transport services, and that section 58a was a local amendment which was inconsistent with the provisions of chapter IVA. 3. The court held that if section 58a is to be considered as still operative, then it is ultra vires the Constitution, being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The court relied on the fact that section 58a and the provisions of Chapter IVA could not simultaneously be in operation, as in that event there would be discrimination between different transport undertakings.

Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to forthwith recall, cancel or withdraw the said permits dated 11th day of September. 1956 for seven hundred stage carriages given to the respondent No. 6 as mentioned in the petition and there will be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to operate any bus on route No. 12c on the strength of such permit. This however, will be without prejudice to the respondents now proceeding in accordance with law.