STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SARAJJUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether clause (g) of sub-rule (i) of rule 78 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (in short 'the Rules' hereafter) is invalid or valid on the ground that the provisions thereof are ultra vires of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. THE learned Single Judge held that the provisions of clause (g) of Rule 78 (i) are ultra vires and invalid because there is no provisions in Section 68 of the aforesaid Act empowering the State Government to make Rules to direct any such delegation. THE learned single Judge consequently annulled the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur delegating the power to issue a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act to the Secretary of the Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 78 (i) (g) of the Rules.

(2.) THE Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur issued a temporary permit on June 10, 1977 to Kunj Behari on the Makrana-Sikar route although applications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits were already pending Sarajjuddin, existing operator of Kuchaman City-Danta route, which overlaps Makrana-Sikar route, filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of Rule 78 (i) (g) and the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated December 4, 1975 delegating the power to issue temporary permits under Section 62 to its Secretary, subject to the conditions specified in that resolution. He also challenged the of the grant of a temporary permit to Kunj Behari by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur on June 10, 1977. THE learned single Judge, as observed by us above, held that the provisions of Rule 78 (i) (g) were ultra vires and invalid and annulled the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated December 4, 1975 delegating its powers to the Secretary to issue temporary permits in the contingencies mentioned therein. THE temporary permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on June 10, 1977 was also quashed. THE learned Single Judge took the view that unless the power to delegate the functions of any Authority is provided in the Act itself the same could not be transferred. A provision for transfer of the functions of the Regional Transport Authority could be made in Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but as there was no provision in Section 68 authorising the State Government to provide for delegation of the powers of the Regional Transport Authority regarding the grant of temporary permits, such power could not be delegated.

(3.) WE may also observe that the temporary permit issued by the Secretary, R. T. A. on June 10, 1977 has expired long ago as it was issued only for a short period of four months. Moreover, such a temporary permit was issued to a person who was already providing stage carriage service on the Makrana-Sikar route under a temporary permit granted to him earlier by the R. T. A. itself and which expired on June 16,1977. As the temporary permit issued by the Secretary R. T. A. has expired long ago, the question of the validity thereof need not be gone into at this stage since no order is required to be passed in respect thereof.