SOMENDRA MOHAN BHADURI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows: In this case there are two appellants. Somendra Mohan Bhaduri and Darbara Singh They were both permit holders at stage-carriages plying on route No. 3 (Serampore-Ballykhal), within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly, and both are members of the Bus Association known as the 'Serampore-Ballvkhal Bus Association'. The appellant No. 1 was the permit holder of stage-carriage No. WGA 1903 and and the appellant No. 2 was a permit holder of stage-carriage No. WGA 1572. Between Serampore and Ballvkhal there are seven fare stages. The scale of fares as it stood privy to the impugned order is hereinbelow indicated-:

(2.) There was an agitation for reduction of the fare between Serampore and Khatir Bazar, near Mahesh, on the said route, and an association styled as the "Serampore Ratepayers' Association'' moved the RT.A., Hooghly, for a reduction of the fare On February 22nd 1956 the R. T. A. Hooghly, passed a resolution to the effect that the fare between Serampore and Khatir Bazar should be reduced to 1 as 9 p only Against the said resolution, the Serampore-Ballvkhal Bus Association of which the appellants are members, moved this Court and a Rule was issued, being Civil Rule No 1928 of 1956 (Cal). This Rule came up before me for hearing It was contended that the RTA. Hooghly, had no power or jurisdiction to fix or reduce the fare, such power being vested in the State Government, under the provisions of Section 43(1)(d)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). It was further contended that Rule 66A of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1940 framed under the said Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Rules") investing the Regional Transport Authority with power to fix a table of fares, was ultra vires, being unauthorised delegation of the power conferred on the State Government under Section 43(1) (d)(ii) of the said Act Both these contentions failed, but the Rule was made absolute on the ground that, at the time that the fare was revised (22-2-56). it was not the occasion of either granting or renewing the permit and when the time came for renewal, no such condition could be attached because there was an interim injunction against doing so. Hence, the change of fares never became attached as a condition of the permit, even under Rule 66A. It was however made clear that the attaching of the condition was only prevented by an interim injunction and it could now be attached. During the pendency of the said Rule, the stage-carriage permit of the appellant No. 1 was renewed in August, 1956. and of the appellant No. 2 in May, 1958, for a period of three years in both cases. On the expiry of the said period, the permit granted to appellant No. 1 was renewed on September 8, 1959, for a period of five years, with the following endorsement: "Renewed upto 28-8-64 on usual terms and conditions as per M.V. Act and Rules." On 19th August, 1959, the R.T.A., Hooghly, passed the following resolution:

(3.) After the said resolution was passed, the said Secretary of the R.T.A. requested production of the permits from the permit holder, so that the conditions may be physically attached to the same. The appellants objected thereto and failing to get redress from the R.T.A. made an application to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge has relied on my decision in Civil Rule No. 1928 of 1956 (Cal) as mentioned above, and observed that in September, 1959, when the permit of the appellant No. 2 was renewed, Rule 66A was in existence, and therefore when the permit was renewed Rule 66A became automatically attached to the terms and conditions of the permit and hence the impugned resolution was in order and was in accordance with law In order to examine this proposition of law it will be necessary to consider certain provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder.