S VISWANATHAM Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal and the Writ petitions particularly raise the same points and may be disposed of together.

(2.) The appellant in the Writ Appeal and the petitioners in the writ petitions are Motor Transport Operators, plying buses between certain routes under stage carriage permits. Pursuant to Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The A. P. State Road Transport Corporation which is the fourth respondent in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions, published certain schemes for nationalising certain road transport services in several districts. The schemes were published in the A. P. Gazette dated 1-11-1974. Several representations were made by the private operators against the proposed schemes. The Minister for Transport heard the representations and thereafter, the Government approved the schemes which were duly published in the A. P. Gazette. In exercise of the powers delegated to him under R. 321 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and in implementation of the appropriate schemes, the Secretary, State Transport Authority who is the second respondent cancelled the stage carriage permits of the Appellant and the Writ Petitioners on the ground that their stage carriage permits were overlapping on the routes in respect of which the Government has approved the schemes of the Road Transport Services. He granted permits to the Road Transport Corporation for the routes specified in the approved schemes. Aggrieved by the orders of cancellation of their stage carriage permits, the private bus operators filed revisions before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, however, dismissed the revisions. The private bus operators thereupon filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before this Court for a writ of certiorari or proper writ or order or direction in the nature thereof, for quashing the order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority cancelling the petitioners stage carriage permits. The Writ petition filed by one of the operators i.e. W. P. 4134/75, was dismissed after due hearing by our learned brother Venkata Rama Sastry, J. and this operator has preferred the Writ Appeal.

(3.) The principal contention of Sri G. Suryanarayana, on behalf of the writ petitioners and of Sri Mangachary, the learned counsel for the appellant in the Writ Appeal is that R. 321 of the Motor Vehicles Rules is ultra virus. It is contended that the rule-making power conferred by Section 68-I of the Act enables the Government to make rules only to carry out the provisions of Chapter. IV-A of the Act and the Chapter IV-A does not contain any provision in regard to the delegation of the powers of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority like Section 44, sub-s. (5) of Chapter. IV. It is vehemently contended that each chapter of the Motor Vehicles Act is a Code by itself in regard to the matters dealt with in that Chapter and that in the absence of a provision similar to Section 44(5) in Chapter IV-A it would not be reasonable to hold that the State Government has any power of delegation to any officer any of the powers of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority. Sri Suryanarayana contends that even though there was Section 68(1) in Chapter. IV which is exactly the same as Section 68-I of Chapter. IV-A the Legislature enacted Section 44, Sub-section (5) only to provide for delegation of the powers exercisable by the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority under Chapter. IV and that the Legislature did not deliberately enact any provision similar to Section 44, Sub-section (5) of Chapter. IV-A, as the Legislature evidently did not consider it proper that the powers of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority under Chapter. IV-A should be delegated to any other Authority.