CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS. versus CHADHA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO.

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 04-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI ANDO~. 
v. 
CHADHA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. 
March 4, 1968 
a 
[J, C. SHAH, R. S. BACHAWAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
c 
D 
F 
G 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 68(2) (ww)-P.,.soru doing th• bwinoss 
of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carrl•d by public carri<rs 
required by notification under S<ction to takt out /lc<ne<g-Validity of 
notification and section. 
'The respondent was engaged in the busines.'I of collecting, forwarding 
and distributing goods carried by public carriers in Delhi, The Chief Com-
miMioner, Delhi issued a notification under s. 68(2) (ww) of the Motor 
Yehic!Q ·Act, 1939 whereby the respondent and those en23l!ed in similar 
businas were required to take out licen=. The respondent filed a writ 
petition in the Punjab High Court challenging cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) and 
tho aforesaid notification on various grounds and askin~ for an order 
quashing the notification. The High Cowt allowed the wnt petition hold-
ing that as the rules frame undtt s. 68 can be made only for the purpose 
of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV of tho Act, and in 
Chapter IV there was no substantive provision requiring agents engaged in 
the business of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by 
public carriers to take out licences, the lej!islature had no power to enact 
cl. (WW) of s. 68(2) authorising the framing of the rules f<t the licensing 
of sudl agents. The appellants came to this Court with certificate, 
HELD : The appeal must be allowed. 
Section 68(2) specifically enumerates the matter on which rulea under 
the ooelion can be made for the purpose of carrying into effect tbe provi-
sions of Chapter IV. Clau5e (ww) of o. 68(2) is an expression of the 
will of the legislature that rules for the licensing of agents engaj!ed in 
the business of collecting. forwarding and distributing goods carried by 
public carriers may be made for the purpose of carryin~ into effect the 
provisions of Chapter IV. The proposition that the legislature must in 
the first instance incorporate in the Act a oection requiring a class of per-
sons to take out licences before it can enact a section authorising the 
mding of rules for such licensing is unsound and must be rejected. Within 
the limits of their legislative powers, parliament and the State legislatures 
have plenary powers of legislation and th!')' may. delegate to an executive 
authority the power to make rules for the licensing of any class of persons. 
[360 H-361 C] 
[Csse remanded to High Court for considering other contentions raised 
in the petition.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App\llll No. 466 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1961 
of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent 
H 
Appeal No. 15-D of 1958. 
B. R. L. Iyengar and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants. 
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent. 
L6 Sup, C.L/61!-10 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. The respond~t carries on the business of col-. 
lecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public car-
riers in Delhi. On October 27, 1956,. the. Chief Commissioner, 
Delhi issued a notification under s. 68(2)(ww) of the Motor Vehi-
cles Act, 1939. 
Under this notification, the respondent and 
other agents engaged in the business of collecting, forwarding 
and distributing goods carried by public carriers are required to 
take out licences. 
The respondent filed a writ petition in the 
Punjab High Court challenging cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) and the afore-
said notification on various grounds and asking for an order qua-
shing the notification. A single Judge of the High Court struck 
down cl. (ww) and allowed the writ petition. He held that the 
clause was ultra vires and invalid and therefore the notification 
issued under it was also invalid. 
His decision was affirmed on 
Letters Patent Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court. 
The appellants have preferred the present appeal from this order 
after obtaining a certificate from the High Court. 
Chapter N of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides for 
control of transport vehicles. · The chapter contains ss. 42 to 
68. Section 68(1) provides that a State Government may make 
rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of 
Chap. N. Section 68(2) provides that without prejudice to the 
generality of the, foregoing power, rules under the section may be 
made 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.