M MOHANA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This batch of four writ petitions by motor transport operators in the city routes of Vijayawada, Masulipatam and Visakhapatnam, challenges the validity of the Notification issued under section 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (V of 1963) by G.O.Ms. No. 1120, Home (Transport-II), dated 1st July, 1967 which seeks to amend the schedule to the Act, as also G.O. Ms. No. 1121, Home (Transport-II), issued on the same date, viz. 1st July, 1967 under section 3 of the Act increasing the tax in respect of standing passengers from Rs. 22-50 to Rs. 67-50, thus making it equal to the rate of tax fixed for sitting passengers.

(2.) It may be stated that before the amendment of the schedule under the said Act, the maximum rate of tax fixed under Item 4 (iv) (a) of the unamended schedule for every sitting passenger other than the conductor, was Rs. 67-50 calculated on the number of such passengers which the vehicle is permitted to carry, while under item 4 (iv} (b), the rate was Rs. 22-50 for every passenger, other than sitting passenger, driver or conductor, which the vehicle is permitted to carry. The Government by an order issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 17, amended these schedules, particularly in respect of item 4 (iv), which is now challenged, by deleting the letter " a " and the words " seated " in item 4 (iv) and the entire provision relating to sitting passengers under item 4 (iv) (b) including the maximum of Rs. 22-50 fixed, with the result that irrespective of whether a passenger is a sitting passenger or a standing passenger, the maximum fixed, viz., Rs. 67-50, became operative. Thereafter acting under section 3, which empowers the Government by a notification from time to time to direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State, imposed a tax of Rs. 67-50 on the standing passengers, equal to that of the tax of Rs. 67-50, leviable in respect of sitting passengers.

(3.) Shri Babulu Reddy appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 1376, contends firstly, that the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act operates as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade and commerce and is therefore hit by Part XIII of the Constitution; secondly, that section 17 suffers from excessive delegation and also contravenes the proviso to Article 304 (b); and thirdly, that the impugned G.O. No. 1120 and the consequential G.O. No. 1121, travel beyond the powers of of delegation conferred under section 17. Mr. Chowdary who appears on bebalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 1377, while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. Babulu Reddy, further contends that the delegation is bad on the ground that section 17 confers a power to delegate an essentially legislative function, which can never be delegated. Nor, he contends, is section 173 law in respect of any of the matters enumerated in List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution. His contention is that on a true construction of Articles 245 and 246 and Lists I, II and III of Schedule VII, a delegated legislative power is not a law which will come under any of the subjects or entries mentioned in the legislative lists. Mr. Mangachari appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1385 and 1444, contends on the assumption that section 17 is a law which falls within Part XIII, that the general assent by the President to the legislation is not sufficient to empower the Government to amend the schedules without specific assent to the amendment of the schedule itself.