1950 Supreme(Ori) 66

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Ray, C. J. And Narasimham, J.
RAGHUNATH PATNAIK - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - Respondent
M. J. C.  118  Of  1950
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 18, 1950

The power to take over the control of inter-district routes and delegate this power to the Chairman is conferred on the PTA by cl. (b) of Sub-section (3) of Schedule 4, M. V. Act. However, this power cannot be delegated to the Chairman except under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of that section, which requires the Government to frame rules for such delegation. In the absence of such rules, the delegation of power to the Chairman is invalid.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 45, 47, 57, 64, SCHEDULE 3, 4, 7 - JURISDICTION OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - GRANT OF PERMIT - APPEAL - POWER OF PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - DELEGATION OF POWERS - VALIDITY - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - JUDICIAL ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Sri Raghunath Patnaik, applied for a stage carriage permit on the Banpur-Berhampur route to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Puri. The RTA, Puri, granted the permit subject to the condition that the vehicle be inspected and certified by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The opposite party, Sri Somanath Patro, who had been granted a permit for the same route by the RTA, Ganjam, filed an objection to the grant of permit to the petitioner before the RTA, Puri, but his objection was not considered as it was filed long after the prescribed period. Somanath Patro then filed an appeal before the Chairman, State Transport Authority (STA), who set aside the order of the RTA, Puri, on the ground that the application for permit made by the petitioner before the RTA, Puri, was incompetent in view of a direction issued by the Provincial Transport Authority (PTA) under Sub-section (4) of Schedule 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the resolution of the PTA dated 15-1-1946, which authorized the Chairman to take over any inter-district route if the circumstances justify unitary control, was ineffective as the power to take over such routes could not be delegated to the Chairman except under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Schedule 4, and no rules had been framed by the Government under that sub-section. The court also held that the resolution of the PTA dated 3-10-1947, which directed that applications for original permits and for counter-signature of permits should be made to the RTA in whose jurisdiction the longest stretch of the route lies, was invalid as it went against the provisions of Schedule 5. The court further held that the Chairman, STA, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Somanath Patro as he had not opposed the grant of permit to the petitioner prior to 16-4-1949 and his objection filed in May 1949 was long after the period fixed for filing objections under Sub-section (4) of Schedule 7.

Issues: 1. Whether the PTA had the power to take over the control of inter-district routes and delegate this power to the Chairman. 2. Whether the resolution of the PTA dated 3-10-1947, directing that applications for original permits and for counter-signature of permits should be made to the RTA in whose jurisdiction the longest stretch of the route lies, was valid. 3. Whether the Chairman, STA, had jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Somanath Patro.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to take over the control of inter-district routes and delegate this power to the Chairman is conferred on the PTA by cl. (b) of Sub-section (3) of Schedule 4, M. V. Act. However, this power cannot be delegated to the Chairman except under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of that section, which requires the Government to frame rules for such delegation. In the absence of such rules, the delegation of power to the Chairman is invalid. 2. The resolution of the PTA dated 3-10-1947, directing that applications for original permits and for counter-signature of permits should be made to the RTA in whose jurisdiction the longest stretch of the route lies, is invalid as it goes against the provisions of Schedule 5, which states that every application for a permit shall be made to the RTA of the region or of one of the regions in which it is proposed to use the vehicle. 3. The Chairman, STA, had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by Somanath Patro as he had not opposed the grant of permit to the petitioner prior to 16-4-1949 and his objection filed in May 1949 was long after the period fixed for filing objections under Sub-section (4) of Schedule 7.

Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute and quashed the order dated 27-7-1950 passed by the Chairman, STA, in M. V. Apps. Nos. 32 and 37 of 1949. The petitioner was awarded costs and hearing fee of two gold mohurs to be apportioned equally between the two opposite parties.