The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delegation of legislative power under S.18(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950 must be canalised and confined within proper limits, and must not result in the modification or repeal of the policy of the legislature.

Headnote:
delegation of legislative power - Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950 - S.18(1)
Fact of the Case:

Operators of stage carriages filed petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging a notification issued by the Government under S.18(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, which substantially enhanced the tax rates for certain classes of vehicles.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delegation of power under S.18(1) to alter the maxima specified in Schedules I and III of the Act was invalid as it lacked a clear legislative policy and standard to guide the exercise of the delegated power. The court held that the delegation amounted to abdication and self-effacement on the part of the legislature, and the notification was declared ultra vires.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the delegation of power under S.18(1) of the Act and the constitutionality of the Act in light of Art.19(1)(g) and Art.304(b) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that essential legislative powers cannot be delegated, and the delegation must be canalised and confined within proper limits. The court also emphasized that the delegation must not result in the modification or repeal of the policy of the legislature. The court found that the delegation under S.18(1) lacked a clear legislative policy and standard, and therefore, was invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notification and declared the delegation of power under S.18(1) to fix tax rates in excess of the maxima prescribed in the Act as invalid. The petitions were allowed, and no orders were made as to the costs of the petitions.

Judgment :-

1. These are one hundred and eighty-two petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution preferred by operators of stage carriages on several routes in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State, for the issue of a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing the notification, TB-2/14667/57/PW dated the 24th September, 1957, made by Government, by virtue of the power conferred on them by S.18(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950, referred to hereinafter as the Act. The Act has provided for the levy of a tax on every vehicle using any public road in the Travancore-Cochin area, and has prescribed in Schedules I and III thereof, the maximum tax leviable for each class of vehicles. S.3, sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act authorised Government, to specify, by notification inter alia the rate at which, the tax shall be levied for each class of vehicles, which, under the proviso to that section, "shall not exceed the maxima specified in Schedule I in the case of motor vehicles, and the maxima specified in Schedule III in the case of vehicles other than motor vehicles". Pursuant to this, Government issued notifications specifying the rates at which tax was to be levied, which, for certain classes of vehicles, were lower than the corresponding maxima specified in the Act. S.18 of the Act provided as follows:

Sub-section (1) "Government may by notification in the Gazette, amend, alter, add to, or cancel in part, or the whole, of Schedules I, II or III appended to this Act."

Sub-section (2) "All references in this Act to Schedule I or Schedule II or Schedule III shall be construed as referring to such schedule as for the time being amended in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)."

On the 24th September, 1957, Government issued the notification, which is now impugned, the effect of which, was to enhance the maxima specified in Schedules I and III of the Act substantially, for certain classes of vehicles, and to fix the rates for them accordingly.

2. The chief contention of the petitioners was, that the delegation of power to Government under S.18 (1) of the Act "to alter, add to, cancel in part or the whole of Schedule I, II or III" exceeded the permissible limits, and is invalid, and that the impugned notification is therefore, ultra vires, Some of the petitioners have also contended, that the Act, imposing as it does, a restriction on "trade, commerce and inter-course," within the meaning of clause (b) of Art.304 of the Constitution, is wholly void, not having been passed after complying with the condition prescribed by the proviso to that clause, which reads:

"Provided, that no Bill or amendment for the purpose of clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President."

A third contention was formulated, but was not developed, that the enhancement of the tax to the extent specified by the impugned notification, is violative of the petitioners' fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In view of the importance of the questions raised, the petitions were referred to a division bench, and were heard by us.

3. At the outset, it is necessary to dispose of an argument, advanced on behalf of a few of the petitioners with some earnestness, that S.18 (1) of the Act must be read subject to the proviso to S.3, on the principle of harmonious construction of different parts of a statute, that so understood, S.18 (1) could not be deemed to confer a power on Government, to enhance the maxima specified in Schedule.1 and III of the Act and that therefore the notification is ultra vires. There is no substance in this argument. The proviso to S.3 was intended to confine the power delegated to Government under S.3 (1) and (2), which was to fix the rates of the tax, within prescribed limits, while S.18 (1) was inserted to delegate to Government, a different power, which was to alter the limits themselves to any extent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(Ker) 127

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delegation of legislative power under S.18(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Vehicles Taxation Act, 1950 must be canalised and confined within proper limits, and must not result in the modification or repeal of the policy of the legislature.

Cases Referred (2)