The main legal point established in the judgment is that the activity of running an Authorized Testing Station did not fall within the powers of the ASTC as an Ancillary Service or a thing to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Corporation.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

Considering the subject matter of dispute and as agreed to by the parties, this writ petition was taken up for final hearing at the Admission stage. Before going to the controversy raised, it would be beneficial to narrate the brief facts of the case.

2. 2 (two) petitioners have joined together in this writ petition to challenge a notification dated 17.12.2018, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, by which, approval was accorded to the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC) to operate Authorized Testing Stations in each District of the State of Assam by realizing service charges from the vehicles as per Rules mentioned in the said notification. According to the petitioners, the impugned action is not only violative of the statute holding the field but is also absolutely unreasonable and arbitrary inasmuch as ASTC, whose primary activity is of running of transport and stands as a competitor to the petitioners and other transport owners, cannot be given such powers.

3. I have heard Shri P. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri B. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri Y. Doley, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department. The ASTC is represented by Shri N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J. Roy, learned counsel.

4. Shri Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, while unfolding his submissions has referred to the relevant provisions of the statutes holding the field. He has referred to Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter the Act of 1988) which pertains to Certificate of Fitness of transport vehicles; Section 213 pertaining to appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers. Reference has also been made to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter the Central Rules of 1989), more particularly, Rule 62 pertaining to validity of Certificate of Fitness, Rule 63 relating to regulation and control of Authorized Testing Station. Reference has also made to Forms 38 in connection with Rule 62 (1), Form 39 in connection with Rules 63 (1) and 63 (5), Form 40 in connection with Rule 63 (2). While referring the Form 40, notice of this Court has been drawn to the requirements of Clause 6 which is as follows:-

"whether involved/connected directly or indirectly in transport business".

Criticizing the said decision, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Road Transport Corporations are creatures of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (hereinafter the Act of 1950) existing in each of the States of the Country and so far as the State of Assam is concerned, the ASTC was incorporated. A reading of the Act of 1950 would show that no such activity of running a Testing Station is contemplated for such corporation and therefore, the impugned decision would be wholly without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the conditions precedent laid down in the Act are absolutely unfulfilled rendering the impugned decision void ab initio.

5. Referring to the objects and reasons of the Act of 1950, Shri Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that the primary object of such Corporation is to provide efficient, adequate, economical and properly coordinated system of road transport services. Reference has been made to the definition of "Ancillary Service" under Section 2 (a) and "Road Transport Service" under Section 2 (e). By referring to Section 19 of the Act of 1950 which lays down the powers of the Corporation, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under Section 19 (1) (b) powers to provide for Ancillary Service was vested upon the Corporations. Under Section 19 (2) (m), the Corporations were empowered to do all other things to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Corporation.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to