AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of Krishna Rao, J., dismissing W. P. No. 853 of 1960.
The Appellant sought to remove the order of the State Government on certiorari rejecting his revision petition under S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) as amended by Madras Act XX of 1948.
The appellant and the fourth respondent were two out of the 18 applicants for a stage carriage permit on the route from Narsipatnam to Chintapalli. The Regional Transport Authority, Visakhapatnam, dealt with the applications on the basis of rule 153-B (A) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 18-6-1959. This rule formulated certain principles for disqualifying applicants for stage carriage permits who had bad antecedents and for assessing the merits of the remaining applicants by awarding marks in case they possessed certain qualifications. The Regional Transport Authority, at its meeting held on 3-3-1960 disqualified the 4th respondent who obtained a total of 5 marks, on the ground that his history-sheet was bad and granted the permit to the appellant, who obtained a total of 3 marks. The aggrieved fourth respondent carried the matter in appeal to the State Transport Authority which found that the fourth respondent''s history sheet was not so bad as to completely disqualify him and granted the permit to him as he had been awarded more marks than the appellant. The appellant took up the matter in revision to the State Government. The State Government rejected the revision in the view that as between the appellant and the fourth respondent, the latter had a comparatively better history sheet and saw no reason to interfere with the decision of the State Transport Authority. It is to set aside the order of the State Transport Authority giving the permit to the fourth respondent as affirmed by the State Government that the writ petition was filed.
In the writ petition, the vires of Rule 153-B (A) on the basis of which marks were awarded to the applicants for stage carriage permits was questioned. Krishna Rao J. disagreed with the contention that Rule 153-B(A) was ultra vires the powers of the rule-making power of the Government. In the result, he dismissed the writ petition.
In this appeal against the order of Krishna Rao, J. the same view is sought to be pressed upon us. We are unable to give effect to the argument of Sri Reddi Pantulu that this rule is inconsistent with S. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act in that it requires the concerned authorities who are entrusted with the duty of granting permits to take into consideration matters which are not contemplated by S. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We do not think that this contention is sound. As pointed out by Krishna Rao J., a scrutiny of the actual matters to be taken into account under Rule 153-B(A) makes it absolutely plain that they were conceived in the interests of the public and thus they fall within the ambit of clause (a) of S. 47(1) of the Act. Indeed, it would be opposed to the interests of the public to grant a permit to an operator with bad antecedents. Similarly, the principles for giving marks to the applicants are intimately connected with the objects of efficiency of service and equality of opportunity, which are in the interests of the public.
Stress is laid by the learned counsel on the expression "in addition to" in the concerned rule in support of his submission that the impugned rule directs the Transport authorities to take matters not envisaged by S. 47 into consideration in disposing of the applications for permits. We are in entire agreement with our learned brother that the wording "in addition to" appears to have been adopted merely for the purpose of focussing the attention of the Transport authority on the matters mentioned in the rule and not for introducing matters which are actually outside the scope of S. 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also to borne in mind that this rule was framed in exercise of the rule-making powers conferred on the Government by S. 68 and this is not in any way repugnant to S. 47. This rule is, therefore, intra vires the powers of the rule-making power of the Government. For these reasons, we cannot uphold the plea of the appellant that the impugned rule is in conflict with S. 47 of the Act.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.