B NOORULLA KHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ Petitions is filed by All India Tourist and Contract Carriage permit holders questioning the constitutional validity of Rules 185(e)(v), 297-A(6)(f)(iii), 297-A(l)(c), and Rule 297-A (2)(b) read with 297-A (6)(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and to declare them as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners are All India permit holders granted under Sec. 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the contract carriage permit holders granted permits under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is the case of the petitioners that the rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Sections 95 and 96 of the M.V. Act, 1988 are not applicable to the All India Tourist permit holders as the rules framed by the Central Government by virtue of the power conferred under Section 88(14) of the M.V. Act 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and the conditions of permit as envisaged under Section 88(11) of the Act are applicable. Hence it is contended that when once the rules framed by the Central Government hold the field, the rules framed by the State Government are not applicable and the rules framed by the State Government run counter to the rules framed by the Central Government. It is the grievance of the petitioners that under the guise of the APMV Rules, the authorities are interfering with their transport business and causing great hardship to them and therefore the action of the respondents is violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by them that right to operate the vehicle is available to them throughout the area for which All India Tourist permit is granted. The infringement of their right to run the buses is in violation of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Central Government framed rules by virtue of the power conferred under Section 88(14) of the Act and Sub-Section ll(iii) of Section 88 empowers the Central Government to prescribe further conditions. Thus, the entire field is occupied by the Centre. It is contended by the petitioners that the Act is a Central legislation made by the Parliament and some powers are conferred on the State to the extent of regulating the conduct of contract and stage carriages and other public service vehicles but the same will not apply to All India Tourist vehicles which are purely governed by the rules framed by the Central Government and therefore the rules framed by the State Government are ultra vires the Constitution and the MV Act and are liable to be struck down.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioners that Rules 185(e)(v) of APMV Rules envisages furnishing of the list of passengers included in the contract to the authority which granted permit and an attested copy of which shall be enclosed to the trip sheet and it further contemplates that a list of passengers attested by a Motor Vehicles Inspector or an Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector or Station House Officer of the nearest police station is posted to the Transport authority within 24 hours of the commencement of the contract and a copy of the same should be annexed to the trip sheet if the contract carriage is commencing the journey from a place other than the headquarters of the Transport authority. It is their case that there is no such rule under the rules framed by the Central Government and on the other hand the rule framed by the Central Government, which is in force, (i.e.) Rule 85(1) and (2) of CMV Rules, only envisage preparation of the list of passengers in triplicate and to be carried in the vehicle giving full particulars and produce the same on demand. Thus Rule 185(e)(v) of APMV Rules is contrary to Rule 85(1) & (2) of the Central Rules and therefore the same is ultra vires of the central rules. Similarly it is contended that Rule 297-A(6)(f)(iii) of APMV Rules contemplates mat an agent should enter into a written contract with the hiring party with the particulars mentioned therein, and Rule 297(A) (i)(c) envisages common purpose of journey which means the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service vehicles and Rule 297 A(2)(b) contemplates that no agent's licence granted to a person shall authorise him to act as an agent for more than one public service vehicle, but a person may be granted more than one licence, for each public service vehicle. It is the case of the petitioners that these rules are contrary to the Central Rules and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore they are ultra vires of the Act and the Constitution and liable to be struck down.