LexINTER STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, NEW DELHI versus P. MANJUNATH KAMATH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 765 INTER STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, NEW DELffi v. P. MANJUNAm KAMAm & ORS. August 2, 1972 [A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND M. H. BEG, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 63A (2)(c)-Directions under section by Jrter-State Transport Commission are administrative In character-Can- not bind Transpon! Authorities in the 11jX'ercise of their quasi-judicial func- 1ions in granting permits etc. The Inter-State Transport Commission issued directions under s. 63A (2)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 laying down that permits by the concerned authorities should be issued in a certain order of preference. The respondents who were appik'ants for permits for inter-State routes were adversely affected and jn writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Consti- tution challengec;I the competence of the. Commission to issue binding directions under s. 63A(2) (c) to a subordinate authority in respect of tho ~ercise of quasi-judicial functions. The High Court al1-ed the writ petitions. In appeal by the Commission to this Court. HELD : It is important to notice that the Act has not conferred any power on the Commission ti> .make Rules. In the absence of any power to enact subordinate legislation by way of rules the delegation of legilla- tive power cannot be lightly inferred. The power to make rules bas been Ollpressly conferred on the Central Government under s. 133 ( 1) and is subject to procedural safeguards. [770 GI This Court in Naidu's case held that the Transport Authorities in dealing with applications for permits and assessing the respective or rival claims of the J)arties discharge quasi-judicial functions and their orders are quasi-judici!ll orderilc It is therefore essential to fundamentals of fair- play in the administration of law that the decision of these Transport Authorities in the matter of grant of permits should not be clogged by directions indicating the orders of preference as happened in the present case. (771 DJ When the Act itself in s. 55 provides preference to Cooperative Socie- ties, as far as possible. it is not appropriate to hold that the Commission would have power to po the identical things. In the present case, the Commission did not rest merely with. giving the first prciference to Co· operative Societies. The Commission thereafter indicated the order of preferenc~ to · Transport Cooperative Societies, Limited OJmpanies, Registered 'firms and lastly to others. [771 Fl It is apparent that the order of preference indicated in the garb of direction.• is an encroachment upon the jdicial discretion of the Trans- port Authorities in the matter of grant of permits. (771 G] The power of the Inter-State Transport Commission under section 63A(2)(c) of the Act to issue directions is referable only to directions of executive and administrative nature. The Commission has no power to ~ntrench upon the quasi-judicial functions of the Transport Au.horities m the matter of grant of permits. The order of the High Court in quash- ing the direction must therefore be upheld. [772 Al 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 1 S.C.R. B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport ,4ppellate Tribunal & Ors., [1964] 7 S.C.R. l, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1084 &: 1091 of 1967 and 1081 of 1970. Appeal by certificate from the judgm·~nt and order dated the 9th June 1966 of the Mysore High Court in W.Ps. Nos. 442, 884 and 441 of 1964. M. K. Ramamurthi and· S. P. Nayar, for the appellant in all the appeals. Respondent did nat appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, 1 .. -These three appeals are by certificate from the iudl!Illents dated 9 June, 1966, 10 December, 1964 and 19 July, 1966 of the High Court of Mysore. A H c The only question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of section 63A(2\(c) of the Motor D Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Civil Appeaf No. 1084 of 1967 concerns applications for grant of permits on specified routes in the State of Maharashtra. On 8 April, 1963, the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara issued a notification under Section 57(2) of the Act invit- ing applications from public carriers permit holders af South Kanara District intendi.<1g to operate their vehicles in the State of Mahaiashtra. The permits were under reciprocal agreement between the State Governments of Mysore and Maharashtra. There were 28 vacancies for permits.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.