D.R. VENKATACHALAM & ORS. versus DY. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER & OTHERS

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 10-12-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
392 
D. jl. VENKATACHALAM & ORS. 
v. 
DY. T/{ANSPORT Cf>MMISSIONER & OTHERS 
December 10, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J,, M. H. BEG AND V. R. KRISHNA lnR, JJ.] 
• Motor Vehicles Rules, r. 155-A, vires of, whether against public iQterests 
whether coRtradicts or impliedly repeals proviso to s. 47(0 of the Motor 
Yehicles Act, 1939-E~presjio unius est etclusi~ alterius. applicability of. 
The aPpellants-, private stage carriage operators, applied for 
the 
renewal 
of their ·expiring bus permits. 
The respondent State Transport 
Uhdertaking 
objected, urging preferential grounds in its own favour, claiming to ha\'e' secured 
higher marks ·with the ·aid of r.-tj:5-A of the lvlotor Vehicles Rules. 1-be State 
Transport Undertaking's claim v.·as upheld. Tue appellants moved the appellate 
Tribunal, and also filed a writ petition before the High Court ·tor directions 
to the appellate Tribunal to dispose of his appeal without-relying on r. 155-A. 
The writ·Ntition was 'dismissed by a Single Judge,.and an appeal before the 
Division· Bench ·a1s6'"failed.' 
· 
· 
· 
-
· 
· 
Jn appeal by Special Leave, the appellants assailed the validity of r. 155-A on 
the grounds of its being partial to the Government against public intere~t an.I 
co!1~.~icti!1g the pro~iso ~o ~· 47(1) of the ~1ot;>r yehicles Act, 1939. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Co\1rt, 
~ELD: (Per K~ishna Iyer I. for himself ~nd ~n be~alf of~· N. Ray CJ.) 
1. The assignment of mark~ under r. 155-A is geared to pubFc 
interest, 
v1hich i$ the desideratum of s. 47(1) of the ·Act. This is not an arbitrary stroke 
of favouritism because there arc many promotional factors 
bearing on · the 
interest o! the travelling public v.•bich a State enterprise qua State enterprise 
will, but a private enterprise qua private enterprise will not take care of. There 
is· equity in r." 155-A," lnaking up, as it does,' for the present short falls iH the 
~g 
system vi1 a vi's .a government transport !crvicc. [398~, 399B] 
0 
P. Kumaralwamy v. State fransport A.pp.eltate Tribuntil, Madrav &:. A.11r. 
(1976] 2 SCR. 214 referr¢ to. 
__ The_ Court obsened : 
Le:al Darwinism, adapting the rule of law to new societal developments, so 
as to surTive ~nd serve the soc~l order, i3 n~ce~ary. [398B] 
Cardozo: The nature of the Judicial Proce.,s: Yale University Press: pp. 
151-152, relied upon. 
2. There cannot be any conflict betweeri s. 47 ( 1) proviso and the impugned 
rule. 
Tue proviso does not carry any negative injunction that tran~port tri-
bunal shall not J?iVe anv other preferential consideration than what is stated 
in it. 
There is no implied interdict that in other contingencies no preference· 
shall be accorded. The proviso merely takes. care of a 
specific situation. 
MOfeovet. the- markin2 formula does not deprive the administrative tribunah 
of their discretion to choose the best 
(399C-E] 
Per H. M. Beg. J. (Concurring) 
Where there is a sinJ?le specified mode laid dowii. for-' doing something: in 
exercise of the legal power to do it, the specified mode may, negatively op~rate. 
' 
D. R. VENKATACHALAM V. DY. TRANSPORT COMM. 
3 93 
(Krishna Iyer, !.) 
as a prohibition against what is not prescribed ar all and is outside che statute. 
Bnt expressio unius est exclu~io alterius could not apply ot a case where two 
modes of doing the same thing are provided for by a statute itself. Here both 
chapters IV and IV-A enable plying of State tran<port as well as priv~ttely owned 
vehicles on hire on same routes, but the grounds for these combined operations 
und.er the two chapters are different. [403A, C, DJ 
Parbhani Transport .Co-operative Sodety Ltd., v. The Regional Transport 
Authority, Auranirabad & Ors. [1960] (3) SCR 177, applied. 
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (1936) L.R. 63 I.A. 372, distinguished. 
Colquhoun v. Brooks (li81) 21 Q.ll. 52 at a' 65; Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 
1 Ch. D. 426 at 430 and Crawfords "Statutory Construction" 1940 Edn., Chap-
ter 18, paragraphs 157 to 158, pages 240-244, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 
1178-
A 
B 
1180/76. 
c 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
22-9-1976 of the Madras High Court in Writ PetitiOn Nos. 3059/ 
75, W.A. No. 339/76 and W.P. No. 14 respectively. 
Y. S. Chiale, V. Subramanyam and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant 
in C.A. 1178/76. 
D 
K. S. Ramamurthi, M. N. Rangachari, A. R. Ramanathan, N.. 
Thimmalai, Jayaraman, 
M. M. L. Srivastava and A. T. M. S. Sam-
path fo

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