A. S. T. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI versus M/S. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS (PRIVATE) LTD.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 29-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
1960 
case and the validity of s. 11 could not in view of 
Art. 31-A be challenged. The validity of the provi-
Jadab Singh 
sions for acquisition by the State of the lands of the 
Himach;i Prnd"h land-owners for compensation determinable in accord-
Adm;nJStration ance with the provisions of Sch. II is also not liable 
Shah ]. 
1960 
April 29. 
to be challenged under Art. 31 read with Art. 31-A. 
In that view of the case, all these petitions must 
fail and they are ordered to be dismissed with costs. 
Petitions dismissed. 
A. S. T. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI 
v. 
M/S. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS (PRIVATE) LTD. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. SuBBA RAO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles-Stage carriage permits, variation of-] urisdic-
tion of Regional Transport Officer-State Government's power of 
revision-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of I939l. as amended by the 
Madras Act, 2oof I948, ss. 44A, 64A. 
The question for decision in this appeal was whether the 
Regional Transport Officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, 
as amended by the Madras State Legislature, had the power to 
vary the terms of a stage carriage permit granted under that Act. 
The appellant, holder of a stage carriage permit, applied on July 
t9, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer for a variation of the 
route specified in his permit. The Regional Officer after hearing 
objections rejected the application. The appellant applied to the 
State Government for revision of the order under s. 64A of the Act 
and the Government after hearing objections set aside the order of 
the Regional Transport Officer and granted variation of the permit 
as sought for. 
Against this order the respondent moved the 
Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The 
Single Judge who heard the matter, following a decision of a 
Division Bench of that Court, held that the Regional Transport 
Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's applica-
tion and the State Government for that very reason could have 
no power in revision to grant the same, and set aside the order of 
the Madras Government : 
Held (per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Sarkar and Shah, JJ.). Sec-
tion 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, introduced into the Act by 
the Madras Legislature, although couched in wide language, 
does not confer on the State Government any original jurisdiction 
or authorise it to pass in revision an order which the authority, 
.whose order it seeks to revise, has no jurisdiction to pass. While 
undoubtedly it can set aside an order of ap auwority or officer 
-
--
• 
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
765 
subordinate to it passed without jurisdiction under Ch. IV of the 
c960 
Act, it cannot substitute its own order directing a variation of the 
-
. . 
stage carriage permit granted to a particular person. Sections 43 Arunachalam Pilla• 
and 48 of the Act make it quite clear that no such authority is 
v. 
vested in the State Government and the words "as it thinks fit" Southern Roadways 
in s. 64A must mean within the ambit of the provisions of the 
(Private) Ltd. 
Act. 
The words "ap.y officer subordinate to him" used in s. 44A 
of the Act, as amended by the Madras State Legislature are of 
wide import and cannot be given a restricted meaning and must 
include an officer in any way subordinate to the Transport 
Commissioner. 
The Regional Transport Officer who was admittedly and 
without doubt administratively subordinate to the Transport 
Commissioner by virtue of the Madras Government notification 
dated February 14, 1953, at the time the application was made 
and was duly authorised in this behalf, had the jurisdiction to 
vary the conditions of the permit issued to the appellant. 
Section 44A of the Act did not depend for its operation on 
any rules to be framed under s. l33A of the Act, which was merely 
an enabling section, by the Government. 
Consequently, there can be no doubt that the State Govern-
ment had the power under s. 64A of the Act to vary the terms of 
the permit which the Regional Transport Officer had refused to 
do. 
B. Veeraswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.LR. 1959 
And. Pradesh 413, approved. 
T. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. P. S. Palani Pillai, A.LR. 1957 
Mad. 599, disapproved. · 
. 
Per Subba Rao, ].-Section 44A of the Act does not authorise 
the State Government to appoint subordinate officers to the 
Transport Commissioner but only enables it to confer statutory 
powers on officers subordinate to him. ·Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.