9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (11) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hra. By their order dated 24/10/1956, the Government set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and directed him to grant the extension of the route. THE propriety of the Government Order is the subject-matter of these Petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. . About two decades ago, in the year 1939, the Central Legislature enacted the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act). Since then the Central as well as the State Legislatures have made extensive amendments to the Act. The Act was amended by the Madras Legislature in its application to the Madras State by several Amendment Acts. For the purposes of this reference, it is sufficient to notice the amendments made by the Motor Vehicles (Madras) Amendment) Act (XX of 1948), which may hereinafter be referred to as the Amendment Act. . The Act creates new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for regulation of motor transport. It contains ten Chapters. Chapter IV, entitled Control of Transport provides for establishment by the State Government of a regular hierarchy of Administrative Bodies. 5. Section 44 of the principal Act empowers the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em, the powers (including the powers exercisable by police officers under this Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the exercise of such powers. " Mention may here be made of Rule 208, made by the Madras Government, by virtue of the powers conferred on them by the Act: " (a) Upon application made in writing by the holder of any permit the Transport Authority may at any time, in its discretion, vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof, subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (b). (b) If the application is for the variation of the permit by the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicles or if the grant of variation would authorise transport facilities materially different from those authorised by the original permit, the transport authority shall deal with the application as it were an application for permit." 8. In W. P. No. 806 of 1951 on the file of the High Court of Madras Mr. Justice Subba Rao held that on a combined reading of Sections 48 and 48-A it was clear that the conditions attached to a permit could be varied only by the State Transport Authority. There was then a proposal before the Government of India to amend the princi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suant to the power conferred under the said notification that the Government of Andhra authorised the Regional Transport Officer in the instant case to vary the conditions of the permit by extending the route. 9. This Central Legislature has since enacted Act 100 of 1956 which came into force on 16/02/1957. Section 48 (3) (xxi) of the principal Act as amended by the Central Amendment Act 100 of 1956, authorises the Regional Transport Authority to vary the conditions of a permit and to attach to the permit further conditions. As the impugned order was made by the Government on 24/10/1956, the question referred to the Full Bench must be determined with reference to the notification issued by the Madras Government on 3 4/02/1953. 10. The answer to that reference depends upon the true construction of the expression any officer subordinate to the Transport Commissioner, found in Section 44-A of the Amendment Act. There is no ruling of this Court which has considered the scope of Section 44-A. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Rajamannar C. J. and Panchapakesa Ayyar J., in W.A. No. 107/55 observed thus: "Now Section 44-A of the Act refers to a Provincial Tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to him in the notification dated 14/02/1953, is bad. 11. According to the decision of the Full Bench, this construction of Section 44-A ensures that there will be no transfer or delegation of powers except to officers whose subordination has been determined by rules properly framed under the Act and it also avoids the anomaly of a person in the position of a Secretary of a body being empowered to vary the conditions of a permit granted by that body. 12. The Act itself does not define the word Subordinate. The Transport Commissioner is constituted the Head of the Department of Transport, which is the Motor Vehicles Department, directed to be constituted under Section 133-A of the Act. It is incontrovertible that the Head of a Department of the Government is a person who is a superior officer having the control of the administration of he Department. From the Financial Code, the Madras Services Manual and the Madras Civil List, it is seen that the Commissioner is the head of the Transport Department and other officers, including Regional Transport Officers are subordinate to him. 13. A reference to the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 730, Home Department D/22-2-1947, pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in respect of any matter relating to road transport and such Transport Authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions. Section 44-A empowers the State Government to appoint a State Transport Commissioner and authorise such Commissioner or any officer subordinate to him to exercise and discharge, in lieu of any other authority prescribed by or under the Act, such powers and functions as may be specified in the notification issued by them. In construing a statutory provision, every word occurring therein must be given its proper meaning. 14. Now, what is the exact purport of the component words of the expression " any officer subordinate used in Section 44-A? Any is a word which excludes limitation or qualification. It connotes wide generality. Its use points to a distributive construction (Vide: Strouds Judicial Dictionary). The word any is used in the sense of anybody, any person. The individual who is invested with the authority and is required to perform the duties incidental to an office is an officer. For determining whether officers are subordinate or not, the test is not whether a review of such of their d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of permits. It enables only the authority which granted a permit to suspend it. This provision does not apply to the variation of the conditions of a permit. Section 48-A introduced by the Madras Amendment Act of 1948, empowers the State Transport Authority to vary, cancel or add to any of the conditions attached to a stage carriage permit. The only limitation on the exercise of this power is that such variation, cancellation or addition should not be made to the prejudice of the holder of the permit without giving him notice. Section 44-A introduced by the same amendment Act, empowers the State Government to authorise the Transport Commissioner or any officer subordinate to him to exercise and discharge in lieu of any other authority prescribed by or under the Act. such powers and functions. On a combined reading of Sections 44-A and 48-A, it is clear that the Government is within its powers in authorising the Regional Transport Officer, who is an officer subordinate to the Transport Commissioner, to exercise the power vested by Section 48-A in lieu of the State Authority. 17. The Madras Full Bench has held that the word subordinate in Section 44-A, should be understood in the sen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties now contend that this answer does not conclude the main question arising in the petitions. The decision of the Government is assailed on the ground, that the petitioners were not given notice of the revision and that contrary to the principles of natural justice, a matter affecting their rights was decided behind their back and consequently they prayed that the orders of the Government in G. O. No. Ms. 2917 D/24-10-1956 be quashed by the issue of a Writ of certiorari. Further they contend that the revision before the Government was Untenable as the right of appeal afforded by Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act was not availed of. For a proper appreciation of the questions raised before us, it is necessary to state briefly the facts. 21. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1047 and 1049 of 1956 are different bus operators, the former operating on the route GunturVijayawada and the latter on the routes Nallapadu Pedakakani and Parchur Guntur. The respondents, D. Pundarikakshudu and T. Buchiramaiah, applied on 5-5-1956 to the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, for the extension of the existing town service route Gujjanagundla to Old Guntur via Stall Girls High School up to N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h reference to the connected records. The Government consider that having regard to the fact that Nambur is growing in importance and also of the fact that representations have been received urging for extension and as there are no direct bus facilities from Old Guntur to Nambur Railway Station, the route Gujjanagundla to Old Guntur via Stall Girls High School should be varied as Gujjanagundla to Nambur Railway Station in respect of Buses ADG 2246 and ADG 919. In this view the proceedings of the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur L.Dis. No. 7855-A3-56 d/-22-8-1956 are set aside as not proper and the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur is directed to grant the variation in respect of the two buses as indicated above." The only question in these writ applications, as already stated is whether the order of the Government is bad by reason of the omission to give specific notice of the revisions filed by the respondents and the variation of the bus route and whether the Government could entertain the revisions when the respondents had a right of appeal which they did not avail of. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Government were not obliged to give any such notice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conditions of the permit, and that even if the Government had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Central Road Traffic Board, the exercise of that jurisdiction was vitiated by the failure of the Government to give notice to the petitioners, before they passed an order which affected them adversely. Rajagopalan J., before whom the matter first came up proceeded upon the footing that no appeal lay to the Government but as it is admitted that the Government had revisional jurisdiction under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, there was no insuperable objection in sustaining the validity of the order passed by the Government. The learned Judge also held that, as the petitioners before him had not filed representations in time, they have no right to be heard by the Government and that consequently there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in not issuing notice to them before interfering with the order of the Central Road Traffic Board. In considering the argument relating to the omission to give notice by the Government, based as it was on the analogy of proceedings in civil cases where even though a party is ex parte at the trial but the judgment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid section to warrant a right of personal hearing or through advocates. As we have already held, the petitioners did not care to make any representation before the concerned authority; as such they cannot now complain of not being given an opportunity to make their representations. The prime requisite and consideration, which should weigh in the grant or refusal of a stage carriage permit or the variation thereof, is the public interest. Section 47(1) enumerates the considerations which should be taken into account in granting or refusing stage carriage permits, viz., the interest of the public generally, the advantage to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken, the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services between the places to be served, the fares charged by those services and the effect upon those services of the service proposed, the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service, the operation by the applicant of other transport services and in particular of unremunerative services in conjunction wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition attached thereto, or (g) being the holder of a licence, who is aggrieved by the refusal of a Regional Transport! Authority to grant an authorisation to drive a public service vehicle may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard. "64-A: The Provincial Government may, of its own motion or on application made to it, call for the records of any order passed or proceeding taken under this Chapter by any authority or officer subordinate to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and after examining such records, may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit." It will be seen from the above provisions, while there is a right of appeal under Section 64(b) against the revocation or suspension of the permit or any variation of the conditions thereof, there is no right of appeal against a refusal to vary the permit. Nor does Section 64-A limit the power of the Government to call for the records of any orders passed or proceedings taken by any of the officers s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
