1983 (2) TMI 328 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notifications issued under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Interpretation of legislative amendments and their impact on the notifications.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions regarding the issuance of stage carriage permits.
4. Relevance of public interest in the context of issuing permits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notifications Issued under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The appellants challenged the validity of two notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming they were ultra vires the Act. The first notification directed the issuance of stage carriage permits to all eligible applicants without any upper limit, while the second notification specified the matters to be considered by the State Transport Authority or Regional Authority when granting permits. The Supreme Court found that these notifications were outside the scope of the Act and declared them ultra vires and void.

2. Interpretation of Legislative Amendments and Their Impact on the Notifications:
The Court examined the history and amendments of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly the changes made by the Uttar Pradesh Act 15 of 1976 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978. The Court noted that the legislative policy had shifted from granting permits liberally to imposing restrictions to prevent unproductive expenditure, underutilization of capital and fuel, and elimination of small operators. The Court held that the notifications ignored the legislative intent and the amendments made by Parliament, which provided for preferences and reservations in permit issuance.

3. Compliance with Statutory Provisions Regarding the Issuance of Stage Carriage Permits:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the State Government had failed to comply with the statutory provisions, particularly Section 47 and its sub-sections (1A) to (1H), which mandated preferences and reservations for certain categories of applicants. The Court found that the notifications circumvented these provisions by directing the issuance of permits without any upper limit, thereby violating the statutory requirements.

4. Relevance of Public Interest in the Context of Issuing Permits:
The Court highlighted that public interest under the Act encompasses various factors, including the needs and convenience of the traveling public, economic viability, and prevention of uneconomic competition. The Court rejected the argument that issuing an unlimited number of permits would serve public interest, noting that it would lead to unproductive capital expenditure, underutilization of resources, and elimination of small operators. The Court concluded that the notifications were not in conformity with the public interest as envisioned by the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and declared the notifications issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh as ultra vires, void, and ineffective. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions and legislative intent in the issuance of stage carriage permits.