Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. G. Oak, J.
CHANDRA KISHORE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 2022 Of 1959
Decided On : 05/11/1962
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - CHAPTER IV-A - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 68-C - FORMALITIES - STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - DEFINITION - OBJECTIONS - DISPOSAL - POWER OF JOINT LEGAL REMEMBRANCER - PERMITS - NECESSITY - EXEMPTION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - RULE 70-A FRAMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, stage carriage operators, challenged the notifications issued under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging irregularities in the issuance of the notifications and the lack of a State Transport undertaking. The State contended that the Transport Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government was the State Transport undertaking and that the activity of operating stage carriages was for a public purpose, exempting them from obtaining permits under Section 42 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Transport Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government could be considered a State Transport undertaking as per the definition in Section 68-A(b) of the Act. The Court found that the Joint Legal Remembrancer erred in his interpretation of his powers under Section 68-D and quashed his order disposing of the petitioners' objections. The Court also held that the State was not entitled to the exemption from obtaining permits under Section 42(3)(f) of the Act, as the activity of operating stage carriages was not a public purpose within the meaning of the provision. Rule 70-A framed by the State Government, which declared the activity to be a public purpose, was held to be ultra vires.
Issues: 1. Whether the Transport Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government could be considered a State Transport undertaking. 2. Whether the Joint Legal Remembrancer had the authority to reject the petitioners' objections altogether under Section 68-D of the Act. 3. Whether the State was entitled to the exemption from obtaining permits under Section 42(3)(f) of the Act. 4. Whether Rule 70-A framed by the State Government was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "State Transport undertaking" in Section 68-A(b) of the Act includes undertakings providing road transport service carried on by a State Government. The Transport Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government, which provided road transport service, could thus be considered a State Transport undertaking. 2. The Joint Legal Remembrancer erred in his interpretation of his powers under Section 68-D of the Act. The authority to approve or modify a scheme includes the power to reject the scheme altogether. 3. The activity of operating stage carriages was not a public purpose within the meaning of Section 42(3)(f) of the Act. The exemption under this provision was intended for specific public services, and the activity in question was more akin to a commercial enterprise. 4. Rule 70-A framed by the State Government, which declared the activity to be a public purpose, was ultra vires. The State Government did not have the authority to interpret the provisions of the Act and declare an activity to be a public purpose when it was not.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the petitions. The order of the Joint Legal Remembrancer disposing of the petitioners' objections under Section 68-D of the Act was quashed, and the State Government was directed to rehear the objections and dispose of them in accordance with law. The State Government was also directed not to operate government stage carriages between Mathura and Govardhan until the necessary permits under Section 42 of the Act were obtained.
( 1 ) THESE two connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against certain Government notifications issued under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereafter referred to as the Act ). In Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 2022 of 1959 there are 12 petitioners. In Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 1013 of 1960 Beni Prasad is the sole petitioner.
( 2 ) IT will be sufficient to refer to the facts of Writ No. 2022 of 1959 in detail. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 plied stage carriages, on Mathura-Alwar route; while petitioners Nos. 7 to 12 plied their stage carriages on Mathura-Kama-Kosi route. In 1958 there was a proposal to nationalise mathura-Govardhan-Barsana route and Mathura-Radha Kund-Chhatta - route in Agra Region. A notification under Section 68-C of the Act was, therefore, issued on 31-12-1958. The petitioners filed objections against the draft scheme. The objections were disposed of by the Joint Legal remembrancer to U. P. Government; objections were overruled; and the draft scheme was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 8-8-1959. As a consequence of the final scheme introduced by the notification published under Section 68-D of the Act, buses are being plied on behalf of the State within the route covered by the petitioners permits. The petitioners permits covered mathura-Govardhan route. The respondents have also been operating on this route. The petitioners have prayed that the two notifications issued under Sections 68-C and 68-D of the act should be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondents be prohibited from plying government buses on the route covered by the petitioners permits.
( 3 ) AN Assistant in the Transport Department of the U. P. Civil Secretariat has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents. One Brahma Dutt has filed an affidavit on behalf of the 12 petitioners.
( 4 ) I notice that as many as 12 transport operators have joined in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 2022 of 1959. Each operator has a distinct and separate interest in operating under his own permit. There should have been 12 separate writ petitions on behalf of the 12 petitioners. The petition was filed in August 1959. It is perhaps too late to drive n petitioners to file separate writ petitions. The irregularity can be cured by requiring the petitioners to pay up the prescribed court-fee for the II other writ petitions. Mr. S. N. Kackkar appearing for the petitioners has given an undertaking to pay up the deficit court-fee on it other writ petitions within 24 hours.
( 5 ) MR. Kackkar challenged the notification under Section 68-C of the Act on two grounds. It is said that the notification was not issued in the prescribed form. It has not been shown how the petitioners have been prejudiced as a result of departure from the prescribed form. The petitioners did file objections against the draft scheme. This is a sufficient indication that the petitioners understood the nature of the draft scheme. Since the petitioners were not prejudiced, it is not necessary to give further consideration to the alleged departure from the prescribed form.
( 6 ) ANOTHER contention of Mr. S. N. Kackkar is that, no State Transport undertaking is in existence in Uttar Pradesh. He pointed out that under Section 68-C of the Act, action has to be taken by the State Transport undertaking. It was urged that no State Transport undertaking exists even now.
( 7 ) THIS matter has been dealt with in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit. It is stated there:
"the Road Transport service is carried on by the State Government and is a State Transport undertaking within the meaning of Section 68-A (b) of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Act No. 100 of 1956. The abovesaid Road Transport services are run departmentally by the State Government in Transport Department and it is not constituted as any separate undertaking or as a legal entity entitled to sue or be sued. Accordingly the notification publishing the
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
