P VENKATAKRISHNAYYA NAIDU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eight Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of by Jaganmohan Reddy, J., (as he then was) by a common judgment, dated 29th September, 1965, which is reported in M/s. R. Veerayya and M. Siddalingaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. They had a common question of law viz., whether rules 189 and 190 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 made under section 64 read with section 68 (2) (j) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1939), were ultra vires of the powers of the Government and must therefore, be struck down. The learned Judge held that those rules were not ultra vires and answered the question against the Writ Petitioners. In W.P. No. 749 of 1965, in addition to the common question mentioned above certain other question also was raised on facts and merits relating to that case. The learned Judge found on that question also against the Writ Petitioner, Shri P. Venkatakrishnayya Naidu. Our learned brother, Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (as he then was) dismissed all the Writ Petitions as a result of his conclusion on the validity of the Rules. The petitioner in W.P. No. 749 of 1965 filed W.A. No. 162 of 1965 against the judgment of the learned Judge as far as it related to the dismissal of that Writ Petition. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P. No. 1827 of 1964 filed Writ Appeal No. 49 of 1966 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 1844 of 1964 filed Writ Appeal No. 191 of 1966 respectively. As all these Writ Appeals are against the common judgment and had a common question of law, they were heard together by common consent.

(2.) In Writ Appeal No. 162 of 1965, there were four respondents, of these, the fourth respondent is K. Ramachandra Naidu in whose favour a permit was granted in the proceedings concerned in that Writ Appeal. The question of law which arises for consideration in these Writ Appeals in the same which was considered in the Writ Petitions before the learned Judge viz., whether rules 189 and 190 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 are ultra vires as referred to above. We will first deal with this question and will later refer to the additional question concerned in W.P. No. 749 of 1965. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows :-

(3.) It will be observed that section 64 contemplates time, manner and authority being prescribed by rules regarding making of appeals and that section 68 (2) (j) provides for rules to be made to prescribe regarding time, manner and authorities relating to making of appeals. In section 68 (2) (j) of the Act, the word ' authorities ' is used in plural indicating that the State Government was given power to make rules providing for more authorities than one to whom appeals could be made. Section 68 (2) (j) gives power to the State Government to constitute by rules authorities to whom appeals may be made which are to hear the appeals that may be filed as indicated in section 64 of the Act. Therefore, if any rule was made for the constitution of authoritis to whom appeals are to be made and are to hear the appeals, such rules would be within the ambit of section 68 (2) (j) of the Act. The learned Judge considered this and various other aspects elaborately for arriving at his conclusion on the contentions which had been raised before him regarding rules 189 and 190. He pointed out the difference between the wording of section 64 and section 68 (2) (j) of the Act which give Government power to make a rule under which the appellate authority is to be constituted (in this judgment, we shall use the word ' authority' in singular so as to cover also authorities in plural) and the wording of section 44 of the Act which imposes on the State Government a duty to constitute State Transport Authority, etc. Section 44 of the Act runs as follows;-