Back
Allahbad High Court
R.S.PATHAK,R.L.GULATI
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
The Inter-State Transport - Respondent
Decided On : 05/21/1971
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Inter-State Transport Commission - Jurisdiction - U. P. Government Roadways - Exemption from permits and counter-signatures - Public purpose - Rule 70-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated January 17, 1966 of the Inter-State Transport Commissioner, New Delhi and the order dated August 26, 1967 of the Inter-State Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Transport Department, plies stage carriages on a number of routes which lie partly within Uttar Pradesh and partly within Delhi. The State Transport undertaking is referred to as the U. P. Government Roadways.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Inter-State Transport Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the Delhi Administration, in our opinion, is without substance and must be rejected. 2. The U. P. Government Roadways is obliged to obtain permits and to have them countersigned when plying across the inter-State routes. 3. The communication of August 5, 1958 nor R. 70-A can avail the petitioner for the purpose of plying the transport vehicles of the U. P. Government Roadways within the State of Delhi without a permit and a corresponding countersignature. 4. An agreement had been arrived at between the State Transport Authorities of the two States, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, reciprocally extending an immunity concerning their respective transport vehicles from the necessity of obtaining permits and to get them countersigned. We are not satisfied from the material before us that any such agreement was in force concerning the routes mentioned above at the relevant time.
Issues: 1. Whether the Inter-State Transport Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the Delhi Administration? 2. Whether the U. P. Government Roadways is obliged to obtain permits and to have them countersigned when plying across the inter-State routes? 3. Whether the communication of August 5, 1958 nor R. 70-A can avail the petitioner for the purpose of plying the transport vehicles of the U. P. Government Roadways within the State of Delhi without a permit and a corresponding countersignature? 4. Whether an agreement had been arrived at between the State Transport Authorities of the two States, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, reciprocally extending an immunity concerning their respective transport vehicles from the necessity of obtaining permits and to get them countersigned?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Inter-State Transport Commission was competent to entertain the dispute which had arisen between the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Delhi Administration in respect of the plying of the U. P. Government Roadways over that part of the inter-State routes which falls within the State of Delhi. 2. Section 42 (1), as we have said, obliges every owner of a transport vehicle, who wishes to use or permits the use of the vehicle in any public place, to obtain a permit. 3. The plying of its vehicles by the U. P. Government Roadways cannot be described as a public purpose. 4. The State Government was not competent under the guise of its rule making power under Section 68 to frame a rule-making that declaration.
Final Decision: The petition is dismissed with costs.
PATHAK, J. :- The State of Uttar Pradesh filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated January 17, 1966 of the Inter-State Transport Commissioner, New Delhi and the order dated August 26, 1967 of the Inter-State Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Transport Department, plies stage carriages on a number of routes which lie partly within Uttar Pradesh and partly within Delhi. The State Transport undertaking is referred to as the U. P. Government Roadways. In respect of some of the routes, the Transport Department has been plying the vehicles from as long ago as 1950 or even from before. Originally, they were plied pursuant to executive orders issued by the State Government. Subsequently, the U. P. Legislature enacted the U. P. State Road Transport Act, 1950 under which the operation of the vehicles of the State Transport undertaking on those routes was validated. The Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in Saghir Ahmad v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 SC 728. The U. P. Legislature then enacted the U. P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955. It came into force with retrospective effect from June 18, 1951, and under Sections 19 and 20 the plying by the State Transport undertaking on the routes was validated.
3. The routes covered by this petition and so validated are the Meerut-Delhi, Dehradun-Delhi, Hardwar-Delhi, Moradabad, Garhmukteshwar Hapur-Delhi, Agra-Delhi via-Bulandshahr and Mathura-Delhi routes, Except for the last route, ten kilometers of each route lie in the State of Delhi. In the case of the Mathura-Delhi route, nineteen Kilometers lie in the State of Delhi. After the enactment of the U. P. Act of 1955, a scheme for the operation of the U. P. Government Roadways on the Bulandshahr-Delhi route to the complete exclusion of private operators was finalised under that Act on September 29, 1956. Ten kilometers of this route lie in the State of Delhi. The petitioner says that the U. P. Government Roadways have been operating on some of the aforesaid inter-State routes with the concurrence of the Delhi State authorities without obtaining any permits or counter-signatures.
4. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 was enacted by Parliament and came into force on February 16, 1967. So far as is relevant here, it inserted two distinct sets of provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 63-A to Section 63-C were added in Chapter IV and provided for an Inter-State Transport Commission having jurisdiction over areas or routes common to two or more States. Chapter IV-A, consisting of Sections 68-A to 68-I, provided for the preparation and finalisation and implementation of schemes of road transport services by State Transport undertakings. One of the schemes provided for the operation of the U. P. Government Roadways on the Saharanpur-Delhi route, ten kilometers of which lie in the State of Delhi. The scheme received the approval of the Central Government and was notified
under Section 68-D (3) on September 29, 1959.
5. The U. P. Government Roadways has been operating upon the routes mentioned above without permits and, therefore, without counter-signatures on any permits. It seems that it is doing so relying on that it alleges to be an order dated August 5, 1958 under Section 10 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act of 1955 which purports to exempt the U. P. Government Roadways from obtaining permits and refers in this connection to Section 42 (3) (a), of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance is also placed on R. 70-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, added by a Notification dated February 29, 1960, and purporting to have been made under Section 68 read with Section 42 (3) (f). Rule 70-A reads :
"70-A. Public purposes for exemption from permit - The use of transport vehicles owned by the State Government and operated by the U. P. Government Roadways in pursuance of a scheme which has been enforced under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939
AI
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
