1959 (2) TMI 33 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Limitation on the appeal filed by the fourth respondent.
3. Fundamental right to conduct business and the impact of subsequent laws on vested rights.
4. Validity and applicability of Government Orders (G.O.s) issued under Section 43A.
5. The quasi-judicial nature of Transport Authorities' decisions.
6. The impact of administrative directions on judicial decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The primary issue in this case was the interpretation of Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1948. Section 43A empowered the State Government to issue orders and directions of a general character concerning road transport to the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority. The court had to determine whether these orders and directions were "laws" that could affect the rights of parties or were merely administrative instructions.

2. Limitation on the Appeal Filed by the Fourth Respondent:
The appellant initially raised the issue that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent to the Central Road Traffic Board was barred by limitation. However, this argument was not pressed further as the High Court had already found that the appeal was not barred by limitation.

3. Fundamental Right to Conduct Business and the Impact of Subsequent Laws on Vested Rights:
The appellant contended that he had a fundamental right to conduct his transport business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. The appellant argued that the Central Road Traffic Board erred in applying new restrictions imposed by a subsequent Government Order (G.O.) that came into force after the Regional Transport Authority had issued the permit to him. The court had to decide whether the appellant had a vested right that could not be defeated by subsequent laws.

4. Validity and Applicability of Government Orders (G.O.s) Issued Under Section 43A:
The court examined the validity and applicability of various G.O.s issued under Section 43A, including G.O. Ms. No. 1037, G.O. Ms. No. 3353, and G.O. Ms. No. 1689. The court noted that these G.O.s were administrative directions and not laws. Therefore, they could not affect the legality or validity of judicial acts of the Transport Authorities.

5. The Quasi-Judicial Nature of Transport Authorities' Decisions:
The court reiterated that proceedings before tribunals issuing permits are quasi-judicial in character. This means that the Transport Authorities must follow judicial procedures and base their decisions on considerations laid down in the Act, such as the interest of the public generally.

6. The Impact of Administrative Directions on Judicial Decisions:
The court clarified that administrative directions issued under Section 43A could only cover the administrative field of the officers concerned and could not add to the considerations prescribed under Section 47 of the Act for issuing or refusing permits. Therefore, the Central Road Traffic Board's decision to grant the permit to the fourth respondent based on an administrative direction did not affect the appellant's vested rights.

Conclusion:
The court held that the orders and directions issued under Section 43A were administrative instructions and not laws. Therefore, they could not affect the vested rights of the appellant. The Central Road Traffic Board's decision to grant the permit to the fourth respondent was valid as it was based on considerations laid down in Section 47 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.