Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S GOVINDASWAMY
S. Kanagaraj and Etc - Appellant
Versus
Government of T.N. and Others - Respondents
Writ Petns. Nos.13990, 13991, 13996 to 13998, 14002 and Etc. Etc. of 1990
Decided On : 09 October 1990
The judgment deals with the validity of Government Order (G.O.) 1794/90 issued by the Tamil Nadu government, which sought to eliminate private operators from approved scheme routes under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (1939 Act). The petitioners, who were private operators, challenged the G.O. on various grounds, including that the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Bill, 1987 (Bill 42 of 1987), which had received the assent of the President of India, should have been published in the Gazette and brought into force, and that the G.O. interfered with the quasi-judicial function of the statutory authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu government issued G.O. 1794/90, which sought to eliminate private operators from approved scheme routes under the 1939 Act. The petitioners, who were private operators, challenged the G.O. on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the G.O. was valid and that the petitioners' challenges were not sustainable. The court found that the Bill 42 of 1987, which had received the assent of the President of India, was not brought into force because the assent was not published in the Gazette as required by law. Therefore, the Bill did not become a law and could not prevail over the 1939 Act. The court also found that the G.O. did not interfere with the quasi-judicial function of the statutory authorities, as the authorities were required to ignore the provisions of the G.O. that were inconsistent with the 1939 Act and the scheme framed thereunder.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Bill, 1987 (Bill 42 of 1987), which had received the assent of the President of India, should have been published in the Gazette and brought into force? 2. Whether the G.O. 1794/90 interfered with the quasi-judicial function of the statutory authorities?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Bill 42 of 1987 did not become a law because the assent of the President of India was not published in the Gazette as required by law. Therefore, the Bill could not prevail over the 1939 Act. 2. The court held that the G.O. 1794/90 did not interfere with the quasi-judicial function of the statutory authorities, as the authorities were required to ignore the provisions of the G.O. that were inconsistent with the 1939 Act and the scheme framed thereunder.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the G.O. 1794/90.
The abovementioned batch of writ petitions have been filed by certain transport operators in Tamil Nadu for
(a) issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash G.O.Ms. No.1794 Home (Transport-D) Department dated 6-8-1990 and for a Mandamus restraining the respondents from implementing the said G.O.Ms. No. 1794 Home (Transport-D) Department dated 6-8-1990 or in any other manner interfering with the plying of the vehicles of the petitioners concerned (relating to W.Ps. Nos.13990, 13997, 14006, 14012, 14015, 14040, 14044, 14057, 14059, 14088 and 14409 of 1990).
(b) issue of a writ of Declaration/ Mandamus to declare that the L.A. Bill 42/87 passed by the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu has become a law in force on the day when it received the assent of the President of India in March, 1989 (relating to W.P. Nos.13991, 13996, 14007, 14013, 14014, 14039, 14043 and 14087 of 1990).
(c) issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the Government of Tamil Nadu to forthwith publish in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, L.A. Bill No. 42 of 1987 which was passed by th
e Tamil Nadu Legislature and which has received the assent of the President of India (relating to W. P. Nos. 13998, 14008, 14011, 14016, 14041, 14042, 14058, 14060, 14087, 14279 and 14280 of 1990).
2. Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', which was inserted in the year 1956, provides for nationalisation of routes. Under S. 68-C of 1939 Act where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed and shall cause every such scheme to be published. S.68-D of the 1939 Act provides that any person already providing transport facilities by any means along or near the area or route proposed to be covered by the scheme; any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities, may raise such objections within the time specified therein and also provides that the Government, after considering the objections by providing opportunity to those persons who filed objections, may approve or modify the scheme and that the scheme so approved or modified shall be published in the official Gazette and the same shall thereupon become final, which may be called as an approved scheme.
3. The effect of the approved scheme is that private operators other than those specified in that scheme itself, cannot operate in the routes "nationalised" in view of S. 68-FF of the 1939 Act. As per S. 68-FF of the 1939 Act, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, in respect of any notified area or notified route covered by the approved scheme, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking, they were given the discretion to grant temporary permit, subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport undertaking in respect of that area or route.
4. After the introduction of Chap. IV-A of 1939 Act about 400 routes were notified under Chapter IV of 1939 Act between the years 1968 and 1977. The State Transport Undertaking operated their buses from terminus to terminus and the existing bus operators who were operating an overlappin
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
