ERODE CO-OPERATIVFE MOTOR TRANSPORT SOCIETY FOR HARIJANS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MADRAS I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of petitions under Art 226 of the Constitution for certiorari the main and common question argued before us is as to the validity of Rule 155-A of the madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1940. The rule was introduced by G. O. Ms. No. 1427. Home dated May 13, 1968. The object of the rule as stated in the preamble is to provide certain guiding principles for the grant of stage carriage permits. The rule has six clauses of which the first classified the routes as short, medium and long. The second clause provides for screening of applicants for stae carriage permits on certain grounds of disqualification. After eliminating the applicants as unsuitable. the following clause specifies how the merits of the rival applicants are to be assessed on the basis of marks to be awarded as for residence, branch office, experience on the route, business or technical experience in the field of motor vehicles operation, repair and maintenance facilities and viable unit. In allotting marks, there is a proviso to Cl. (3) which is to the effect that if a new entrant had made an application for a short route other than a town service route, no marks should be awarded to any applicant for branch office, experience on the route, repair and maintenance facilities and viable unit. Under Cl. (4), after the marks have been awarded under the preceding clause, the applicants should be ranked according to the total marks obtained by them and the application should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 47. And then the next clause says that subject to sub-rules (1) to (4) and 5 (ii) preference shall, other things being equal, be given in the disposal of applications in respect of short routes other than town service routes to persons who have not held any permit for a stage carriage. Clause (5) (ii) contains another ground of preference and that is notwithstanding anything contained in Cl. (5) (i), but subject to the other provisions of that rule, preference shall, other things being equal, be given to a person who being the holder of a stage carriage permit has during the period of three years immediately preceding fifteen days prior to the date on which the application is considered, not been punished under the Act or the Motor Vehicles taxation Acts mentioned in the sub-clause. The proviso to the sub-clause provides that any such punishment should not be taken into account for the purpose of the sub-rule if such punishment had on or before the date on which the application was considered been stayed by a competent authority. The last clause of the rule requires a tabular statement of the marks awarded to each applicant to be appended to an order made under Section 48. It may be remembered that there was a somewhat similar marking system in vogue earlier to this rule, but that scheme was struck down in Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate tribunal, Madras. on the ground that it was not made in exercise making of the scheme. C. S. S. Motor Service, Tenkasi v. State of Madras air 1953 Mad 279 drew attention to the desirability of framing rules containing the policies relating to public interest and to make the practice in the matter of selection among rival applicants uniform. Evidently in this background the impugned rule has been made in purported exercise of the power under Section 68 as we see from the Government Order promulgating it.

(2.) THE validity of the rule is canvassed on four grounds: (1) Section 68 does not provide the power to make the rule so as to fetter the quasi-judicial function under section 48 (1) read with Section 47 (1 ). (2) While Section 47 (1) entrusts the discretion to the authorities specified, in the matter of selection of an applicant, the rule takes away or fetters that discretion; (3) The rule, inasmuch as it is inconsistent with the proviso to Section 47 (1), is ultra vires (4) The rule also offends Arts. 19 (1) (g) and 14. . We shall deal with these points seriatim.

(3.) A peculiar feature of the Motor Vehicles Act is that practically at the end of every Chapter there is a rule making power and a few of the sections refer to the procedure of manner of exercising the power as prescribed. Section 68 is in chapter IV of the Act. It has two sub-sections and the first provides that the State government, may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of that Chapter. Without prejudice to the generality of the power, sub-section (2) specifies certain matter with reference to which the State Government is authorised to make rules. It may be granted that Rule 155-A is not within the purview of any of those specified matters. The rule can therefore, be justified only if it comes within the purview of sub-section (1) of S. 68. The phraseology conferring the rule making power is wide and the State Government will be competent to make any rule in exercise of this power, the only limitation being that the rule so made should be for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Chapter,. The purpose of Rule 155-A is to lay down guiding principles for grant of stage carriage permits. That subject is covered by Section 48 (1), which authorises the Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit on an application made to it under Section 46. But the power is to be exercised subject to Section 47. Section 47 (1) directs that in considering an application for stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority should have regard to the matters specified in Cls. (a) to (f) and also to the representations made by the specified persons and the authorities. Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 47 is "the interests of the public of the service to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger transport services, the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by a particular service, the operation by the applicant of other transport services and the condition of the roads are the matters specifically provided which ought to be taken into account by the Regional transport Authority in considering an application among other things. The purpose of the Chapter as provided in S. 48 (1) and Section 47 (1) is the selection or rejection of an applicant for grant or refusal of a permit as the case may be and one of the criteria with reference to which this purpose is to be achieved is by taking into account the interests of the public generally. What that means very much concerns and in fact is basic for the purpose. Laying down principles for guidance in the matter of grant of stage carriage permit, more especially in indicating in broad outlines what public interest generally in the context may take in is within the rule making power of Section 68 (1 ). It cannot be said that merely because certain matters are specifically mentioned in sub-section (2) it follows, therefore, that the generality of the power should in any way be put down. Provided the rule made under Section 68 is for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Chapter IV. the rule cannot be invalidated on the ground of want of power. We are satisfied that the Rule is within the power of the State government under Section 68 (1 ).