LexDOSA SATYANARAYANAMURTY ETC. versus THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
The Sama11th Ttansporl Co. (PJ I.Id. v. The Uegio11al Ttattsporl Authority, Nagput 6- Others St1bba Rao ]. September 8. 642 SUPREME COVRT REPORTS (1961] reasons mentioned in the or<lers but were only lo givo time lo enable the Governmen_t to approve the scheme, rna.y not be wholly unjnstifie<l. In the circumstances, though we are disrniRsing the application, we a.re not awarding any costs to tho respondents. Petition dismissed. DOSA SATYANARAYANAMURTY ETC. v. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPOHATION (B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. G.AJENDBAGADKAB, K. SuBBA RAO a.nd K. N. WANCHOO,. J.J.) Mota, V ehirles-N aJionalisation of ,oad transport services- PrcparaJion and enforcement of schcmes-ConstitHtional validity of rnactment-Varyifl~ frequmcy of services, if variation of the scheme-Validity of rule-Motor V chicles Act. 1939 (IV of 1939), as amended by Act 100 of 1956, Ch. IV. ss. 68C, 68E--A11dhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles R11/es, r. 5-Conslitution of Itidia, Arts. 19 (I)(g), I9(6)(ii), I4. These petitions by certain stage carriage permit-holders for appropriate writs quashing seven schemes for nationalisation of road transport services in West Godavari District, approved and enforced from different dates by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, called in question the constitutional validity o! Ch. IVA o! the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Act 100 of 1956, and the validity o! r. 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules framed by the State Government under s. 68(1) of tbe Act and the note in terms of the said rule ap- pended to the schemes which was said to be inconsistent with the Act and was as follows:- "The frequency of services of any of .the notified routes or within any notified area shall, ii necessary, be varied having regard to the traffic needs during any period." Held, that in view of the decision of this Court in H. C. • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTR 643 Narayanappa v. The' State of Mysore, it was no longer open to the petitioners' to contend that the provisions of Ch. IVA of the Motor Vehicles.Act (IV of 1939), as amended by the Central Act mo of 1956, were ultra vires the powers of the Parliament. H. C. Narayanappa v. The State of Mysore, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 742, followed. Nor was i.t correct to contend that Ch. IVA· of the Act was invalid on the ground that it infringed Art. l9(1)(g) of the Con- stitution and was not saved by Art. 19(6) ·as the powers confer- red on the State by s. 68C of the Act exceeded the limits of Art. 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution. Article l9(6)(ii) is couched in very wide terms, the word 'service' used by it is wide enough to include all species of motor service and it does not in any way limit the 'States' power. to confer on itself a monopoly in respect any area in exclusion of any person or persons. The only classification that Ch. IVA of the Act makes is between. the State Transport Undertaking and private transport undertakings, whether carried on by individuals or firms or companies, and that classification is reasonably connected wit\l the object it has in view. It was not, therefore, correct to s~y that it contravenes Art. 14 of the Constitution. That Chapter. does not confer any arbitrary ·and discriminatory power upon the State Transport Undertaking nor does. the quasi-judicia·f. procedure prescribed by it seek to cover such power. Any mala fide or collusive exercise of the power, therefore, in depri- vation of an individual's rights can only be a ground for quash- ing a particular scheme alone but not for declaring the chapter void. Since that chapter provides a complete and satisfactory machinety for reasonably regulating thecxclusion of all or some of the private operators from a notified area or route it requires no liberal construction. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 319, referred to. Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U. P., [1955] I S.C.R. 707, con- sidered. Official bias inherent in the discharge of a statutory duty, as has been_ poi·nted out by this Court, is distinct from personal bias for or against any of the parties. Since in the instant case, the State Road Transport Corporation was neither legally nor factually a department of the State Government and the State Government in deciding the dispute between the said under- taking and the operators of private buses was only discharg- ing its statutory
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.