In Re: R. Velayudham Pillai

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.—The petitioner has been prosecuted for having disobeyed an order of the Tinnevelly Road Traffic Board prohibiting

the owners of buses from changing tyres or tubes in contravention of the order passed by that Board on the 3rd, December, 1942. That order was

passed in exercise of the power conferred under the Defence of India Rules and Defence of India Act. It? was urged for the petitioner that the

Provincial Government had no power to delegate its powers to the Road Traffic Boards and that even the Provincial Government itself has no

power to make such a rule. A preliminary objection to that effect was raised and disallowed by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Tinnevelly.

It is to revise that order this petition has been filed.

u/s 2 of the Defence of India Act the Central Government could make rules and also confer powers on the Provincial Governments. Under Rule

89(2)(1) framed under the Defence of India Act,

The Central Government or the Provincial Government may by order make such other provisions in relation to road transport as appear to that

Government to be necessary or expedient for securing the defence of British India....

Under that rule the Provincial Government has powers to pass the order now said to have been contravened. u/s 2(5) of the Defence of India

Act,

A Provincial Government may by order direct that any power or duty which by rule made under Sub-section (1) is conferred or imposed on the

Provincial Government...has been directed under Sub-section (4) to be exercised or discharged by the Provincial Government shall in such

circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged by any officer or authority, not

being an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government.

The Provincial Government has issuerd a G.O. (MS. 3488 Home) published in Part I of the Fort St. George Gazette of the 5th August, 1942 at

page 905 directing that the powers conferred on the Provincial Government by clauses (a), (f) and (i) of the Defence of India Rules with respect to

the use of transport vehicles as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, shall be exercisable also by the Provincial and Regional Transport

authorities constituted under the last mentioned Act. Such a delegation is valid u/s 2(5) of the Defence of India Act. It is stated that such a

delegation cannot be made in cases where the power is to be simultaneously exercised by the two Governments, namely, the Central and the

Provincial. I am not able to see anything in the Act, nor is my attention drawn to any provision in the Act, to indicate that such delegation is

prohibited. But it is stated that Section 2(3)(iv) seems to indicate that the Legislature did not contemplate such simultaneous exercise of powers by

two Governments. I am not able to see anything in it to indicate that such a conferment of powers is prohibited.

Moreover Section 2(5) is independent of Sub-section (3) and cannot be said to be governed by any of the provisions of that sub-section.

It is also stated that Rule 89(2) of the Defence of India Rules also is ultra vires because it confers powers on the Provincial Government and the

Central Government. I am not able to see how such an exercise of powers by both the Governments can be said to be illogical or prohibited by the

Act or Rules.

In these circumstances, I find that the order of the Magistrate overruling the objections is correct, and the petition is dismissed.