1960 (4) TMI 87 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer to vary the conditions of a permit.
2. Jurisdiction of the Government of Madras to grant variation in revision.
3. Whether the respondent could raise the jurisdiction issue at a later stage.
4. Interpretation of Section 44A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer to Vary the Conditions of a Permit:
The principal question was whether the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) had the power to vary the conditions of a permit to ply a stage carriage. The appellant applied to the RTO for a variation in the permit, which was initially rejected. The Government of Madras, however, granted the variation upon revision. The respondent challenged this, arguing that the RTO lacked jurisdiction, a position supported by a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955. The Supreme Court examined Section 44A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows the State Government to authorize the State Transport Commissioner or any officer subordinate to him to exercise the powers of other authorities under the Act. The Court concluded that the RTO, as an officer subordinate to the Transport Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to vary the permit conditions as authorized by the Government of Madras through Notification No. G.O. MS. 527.

2. Jurisdiction of the Government of Madras to Grant Variation in Revision:
The appellant contended that even if the RTO lacked jurisdiction, the Government of Madras had the power under Section 64A of the Act to grant the variation. Section 64A allows the State Government to pass orders in revision concerning the legality, regularity, or propriety of any order passed by a subordinate authority. The Supreme Court held that while the Government could set aside an order lacking jurisdiction, it could not substitute its own order for one that the original authority had no jurisdiction to pass. Thus, the Government could not grant a variation that the RTO could not have granted.

3. Whether the Respondent Could Raise the Jurisdiction Issue at a Later Stage:
The respondent raised the jurisdiction issue during the hearing before Rajagopalan, J., despite not including it in the original petition under Article 226. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to allow this plea, noting that the Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955, which declared the RTO's lack of jurisdiction, was delivered after the filing of the petition. The Court emphasized that jurisdictional issues go to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage.

4. Interpretation of Section 44A of the Motor Vehicles Act:
Section 44A, introduced by the Madras Amending Act, allows the State Government to authorize the State Transport Commissioner or any officer subordinate to him to exercise the powers of other authorities under the Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the RTO was an officer subordinate to the Transport Commissioner. The Court referred to administrative and statutory subordination, ultimately agreeing with the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which held that the RTO was indeed subordinate to the Transport Commissioner. The Court noted that the Madras Government's notification empowering the RTO to vary permit conditions was valid under Section 44A.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the single Judge and Appellate Court of the High Court. The case was remanded to the High Court for rehearing on other points raised in the writ petition, as the initial decision was based solely on the jurisdiction issue. The appellant was awarded costs for the appeal, with costs in the High Court to abide by the result.

Separate Judgment:
Justice Subba Rao dissented, arguing that the Regional Transport Officer was not subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner within the meaning of Section 44A. He emphasized that statutory subordination, not administrative subordination, was required, and no rules under Section 133A made the RTO subordinate to the Commissioner. Consequently, he would have dismissed the appeal.