RAJESWARA NAIDU V Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these cases raise common questions of fact and law.

(2.) These cases were heard on 4th and 5th of November, 1994 and posted for judgment today. The appeals 1188 and 1189 of 1993 which also appeared in the list on those days along with the other cases, yet have been listed today; due to reconstitution of Bench, before a Bench presided over by one of us, Honourable Justice Lingaraja Rath but of which Honourable Sri Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju is not a member. But it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri V. Narasimha Reddy and the Government Pleader for Transport that as these cases were also before this Bench on 4th and 5th of November, 1994 and though were heard wrongly, yet were not shown as part heard, they have to be disposed of by this Bench. All the cases are hence disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The substantial question urged in all the cases is the competence of the respondent No.1 to issue the Circular No. 26394/M.1/93 dated 27-5-1993 and its validity vis-a-vis the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. A brief adumbration of the facts is necessary to introduce the questions raised by the learned Counsel, though the facts appear with elaborate description and clarity in the judgment under appeal. The appellants, who were also the writ petitioners, are all transport operators holding contract carriage permits and / or tourist permits. An earlier crop of cases, writ petitions 6043 of 1992 and batch, had been filed assailing vesting of powers to seize the vehicle under Section 207 of the, Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Those cases were dismissed with some observations on 16-2-1993. The communication of the result of the decision from the Office of the Government Pleader was received by the Transport Commissioner on 11-5-1993. Even before that, Writ Petitions Nos. 4565,4571 and 4767 of 1993 had been filed complaining of the authorised Officers as not following the principles laid down by the Court in the decision. Some more writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition Nos. 5913, 6290, 6562, 6563 and 6564 of 1993 were filed for issue of direction to respondents to implement the orders in Writ Petition No. 6043 of 1992. While admitting the petitions, this Court issued interim directions to the respondents not to take action against the petitioners, if they had not violated any of the conditions laid down in the order dated 16-2-1993 in W.P.No. 6043 of 1992. Because of such interim orders, clarifications were sought for by the authorised Officers in response to which the Transport Commissioner issued Circular Memo Nos. 25261 / M.1 / 93 dt. 18-5-1993. A number of writ petitions were filed questioning the circular issued. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 in consultation with the Government Pleader for Transport issued the impugned circular of 27-5-1993 in supersession of the earlier circular dated 18-5-1993.