1965 (9) TMI 71 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rules 189 and 190 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964.
2. Constitution of the Appellate Authority under Section 64 read with Section 68(2)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Proper constitution of the Appellate Authority at the time of hearing.
4. Merits of the case in Writ Petition No. 749/65.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rules 189 and 190 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964:
The primary issue was whether Rules 189 and 190, which empower the Chairman of the State Transport Authority to constitute an appellate authority, are ultra vires the powers conferred by Section 64 read with Section 68(2)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court examined the relevant provisions and concluded that the rules are within the powers conferred on the Government. The court stated, "The power to prescribe the authorities is wide enough, not only to specify by rules the persons who constitute the appellate authority, but also the manner in which the authority can be constituted."

2. Constitution of the Appellate Authority:
The petitioners contended that the Government should itself specify all the members of the Appellate Authority and not delegate this function to the Chairman of the State Transport Authority. The court held that the Government has the power to make rules for the constitution of the appellate authority and that empowering the Chairman to choose the other two members from among the State Transport Authority is within the scope of the Government's powers. The court noted, "There is, in my view, no question of any delegation of the power vested in the Government in constituting the authority to the Chairman."

3. Proper Constitution of the Appellate Authority at the Time of Hearing:
The petitioners argued that the appellate authority was not properly constituted as the non-official member was not present, making the authority less than the prescribed three members. The court found that Rule 190, which allows a quorum of two members, is valid and does not contravene the Act. The court cited previous judgments to support this view, stating, "The quorum rule is not ultra vires the powers conferred on the Government."

4. Merits of the Case in Writ Petition No. 749/65:
The petitioner in W.P. No. 749/65 contended that the appellate authority did not consider relevant factors such as his long experience and the fact that the 4th respondent had no sector qualification and had given different addresses. The court found that the appellate authority had considered all relevant factors and that the preference given to the 4th respondent was justified based on a clean history sheet. The court stated, "Even if the petitioner is deemed to have a workshop, there is still the fact that the history sheet of the 4th respondent is clean compared to that of the petitioner. This is a question of fact, which this Court cannot go into."

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of Rules 189 and 190, and confirming that the Appellate Authority was properly constituted. The court also found no grounds to interfere with the appellate authority's decision on the merits in W.P. No. 749/65. The petitions were dismissed with costs.