9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the draft scheme of nationalization under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Validity of Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules. 3. Allocation of functions under the Motor Vehicles Act to the Transport Minister. 4. Delegation of statutory functions by the State Government. 5. Validity of provisions of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Draft Scheme of Nationalization under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act: The appellants, private stage carriage operators in Tamil Nadu, challenged the draft scheme of nationalization prepared and published under Section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The primary contention was that the requisite opinion under Section 68(C) was not formed by the State Government but by the Secretary to the government in the Industries, Labour, and Housing Department, acting under Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules. The appellants argued that Rule 23(A) was ultra vires the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petitions, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the draft scheme was valid as the requisite opinion was formed in accordance with the rules. 2. Validity of Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules: Rule 23(A) was introduced to allow the Secretary to the Government of Madras in the Industries, Labour, and Housing Department to exercise powers under Section 68(C) of the Act on behalf of the State Government. The appellants argued that the Governor exceeded his powers under Article 166(3) of the Constitution by making Rule 23(A). The Supreme Court held that the Governor, on the advice of the Council of Ministers, could make rules for the convenient transaction of business, including designating officials to discharge specific functions. Therefore, Rule 23(A) was valid. 3. Allocation of Functions under the Motor Vehicles Act to the Transport Minister: The appellants contended that the functions under the Motor Vehicles Act were allocated to the Home Department and not to the Transport Minister. However, the Supreme Court found that when the D.M.K. government was formed in 1967, the Home Department's subjects were distributed among various ministers, and the Transport Minister was allocated the functions under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court agreed with the High Court that the functions were validly allocated to the Transport Minister. 4. Delegation of Statutory Functions by the State Government: The appellants argued that the State Government could not delegate its statutory functions under Section 68(C) to any other authority, as it would undermine the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that under the Constitution, the Governor could make rules for the convenient transaction of business, including delegating functions to officials. The Court emphasized that civil servants act on behalf of the government and not as delegates of the ministers, and their decisions are considered decisions of the government. 5. Validity of Provisions of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968: The validity of some provisions of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968 was also challenged. However, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to address these questions for deciding the validity of the impugned scheme. The Court left these questions open to be decided if and when action is taken based on those provisions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the draft scheme of nationalization, Rule 23(A) of the Madras Government Business Rules, and the allocation of functions under the Motor Vehicles Act to the Transport Minister. The Court concluded that the Secretary's actions under Rule 23(A) were valid and that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility was not undermined. The questions regarding the validity of the Madras Amending Act XVIII of 1968 were left open for future consideration. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
