Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1968 (1) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and competence of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to pass the impugned order. 2. Validity of Rule 67(5) concerning quorum and its consistency with Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1958. 3. Applicability of principles of natural justice in the context of the RTA's quasi-judicial functions. 4. The power of the High Court under Article 227 to entertain challenges to the vires of statutory rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Competence of the RTA: The petitioner challenged the order of the RTA dated 27th April 1967, rejecting the renewal of his stage carriage permit and granting a fresh permit to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The primary contention was that the RTA was not properly constituted on the date of the hearing, rendering it incompetent to pass the impugned order. The petitioner argued that the tribunal's composition violated Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates that the RTA must consist of a chairman with judicial experience and at least two other members. The tribunal's decision was considered coram non judice and thus a nullity. 2. Validity of Rule 67(5) Concerning Quorum: The petitioner contended that Rule 67(5), which allowed the RTA to act with a fluctuating quorum, was ultra vires Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 44(2) specifies the composition of the RTA, requiring a chairman with judicial experience and a minimum of two other members. The rule of quorum under Rule 67(5) allowed decisions to be made by a smaller number of members, which the petitioner argued violated the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The court agreed, holding that the quorum rule was inconsistent with the Act when it came to quasi-judicial functions, as it undermined the tribunal's integrity and judicial nature. 3. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that a quasi-judicial tribunal must act as a whole and its members cannot be a fluctuating body. The tribunal's composition must remain constant throughout the hearing to ensure fairness and adherence to natural justice principles. The quorum rule, which allowed decisions by a smaller number of members, was deemed destructive of these principles. The court held that the rule of quorum could not apply to quasi-judicial functions of the RTA, as it would lead to decisions being made by a tribunal not properly constituted. 4. Power of the High Court under Article 227: The court addressed the preliminary objection raised by the Corporation that the tribunal, being a creature of the statute, could not question the vires of a statutory provision. The court held that while the tribunal could not entertain challenges to the vires of the statute, it could consider whether a rule was inconsistent with the Act. The High Court, exercising its superintendence powers under Article 227, had the duty to keep the tribunal within the statutory limits and could restrain it from exercising jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the Act. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order of the RTA, holding that the tribunal was not properly constituted as per Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The quorum rule under Rule 67(5) was deemed inapplicable to the RTA's quasi-judicial functions. The matter was remanded to the RTA for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The court issued a writ of certiorari and made the rule absolute with costs, directing the Corporation to pay the petitioner's costs. The stay order was extended for a fortnight from the date when certified copies were ready for delivery to the respondents.
|