D R VENKATACHALAM Vs. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A terse presentation of the twin contentions canvassed before us, in these appeals by special leave, after discomfiture at two tiers below, highlights the importance of the economic role of the State in undertaking with legal preferences, strategic services vital to the community. The keynote thought underlying our decision is that the jural postulates of the old competitive order have to yield place to the new values of developmental jurisprudence. Public law, in India, responding to the public needs and the State's functional role mandated by the Constitution, has evolved new approaches to old problems and given up dogmas which once prevailed during laissez-faire days but now have become obsolete because of the 'welfare economy' which has been nurtured. This radical change in jural perspectives has its impact on canons of statutory construction and on verdicts about the vires of legislation. All these generalities acquire appropriate application in the present cases which arise under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (the Act, for short) from challenges before the High Court without avail, by private operators, of the permit granted to the State Transport Undertaking (STU) by the transport tribunals. The validity of Rule 155A of the Motor Vehicles Rules framed under Section 68 of the Act is in issue.

(2.) The core of counsel's submissions is two fold:- (1) Is R. 155A, assigning five marks for a State undertaking, not fatally violative of Section 47 of the Act (2) Does the later amendment to the proviso to Section 47 giving preference to State transport systems, other things being equal, impliedly repeal, as contrary to its content, Rule 155A which gives better advantage to the favoured category, fulfilling the spirit of the statutory amendment more tellingly We will proceed further after stating the circumstances leading up to the writ petition before the High Court and the appeal before us.

(3.) The appellants, who have come by special leave to this Court, are private stage carriage operators. We will relate the facts of one case (Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 1976) the decision in which will settle the fate of the rest, the decisive point of law being identical. The permit of the appellant's bus on the route Salem to Erode was to have expired on September 13, 1974 and so he applied for renewal under Section 58 (2) of the Act. The respondent State Transport Undertaking objected to the renewal of the permit urging preferential grounds in its own favour. The State undertaking's claim was upheld on the score that it secured higher marks computed with the aid of Rule 155-A. Baulked in his application for renewal, the appellant challenged the order before the Appellate Tribunal. Apprehending an adverse decision on the strength of Rule 155-A, he filed a writ petition before the High Court praying that a direction be issued to the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of his appeal without relying on Rule 155-A. The plea was negatived by the learned single Judge and a Division Bench dismissed the appeal therefrom. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings the appellant has assailed before us the vires of Rule 155-A as obnoxious to public interest excluding in some measure, a fair competition and being contrary to the proviso to Section 47 (1) of the Act.