LexISHWAR SINGH BAGGA & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ISHW AR SINGH BAGGA & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN ETC. ~-- - NOVEMBER 19, 1986 B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Section 129A-Validity of the Notification .... No. 7-1(6) H/unit X-75 Home (Courts x) Department Government of Rajasthan, empowering Deputy General Manager (Traffic), Assistant Depot Managers and Traffic Inspectors in addition to the Police to exercise the c powers under section 129A of the Act in respect of all stage carriages and 1· contract carriages on the Notified routes under section 68-D(3 )-Wor</s and phrases, 'other Person: meaning of-Whether includes officers of the Corporation. ~ The State of Rajastruin issued a Notification No. 7.1(6)H/Unit-x-75 D Home (Court x) dated 15.7.1975,undjr section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 empowering certain offiCfl'.S of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to exercise in respect of all stage carriages and contract carriages on the Notified Routes under section 68-0(3) of the Act, the powers that can be exercised under section 129 A of the Act by the police officers who are empowered in that behalf. E The writ petitioners and the appellants are holders of contract carriage y permits carrying on business ii) the State of Rajasthan and other adjoining States. Under the said permits they are entitled to run tlie contract carriages throughout Rajasthan, except on the notified routes. Some of them also own i;notor vehicles which are covered by permits issued under section 63(7) of the F Act having the privilege of carrying on passengers on contract throughout India. :-.:. \ The petitioners/appellants contended (i) that the appointment of the ~- officers of the Corporation who are their rivals in motor transport business, as officers entitled to exercise powers .conferred under section 129 A of the Act G was violative of Article 19(1 Xg) of the Constitution; and (ii) that the said officers who are very much interested in seeing that the Corporation earns much profit, have been overzealous in exercising their powers conferred on them and by seizing and detaining the motor vehicles belonging to the petitioners/ appellants have acted contrary to law. ~- H Allowing the petitions and appeals, the Court, 300 l.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 301 HELD: 1.1 The Deputy General Manager (Traffic), the Assistant A Depot Managers and the Traffic Inspectors of the Corporation could not have been authorised by the State Government to discharge the powers under section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [315 E] 1.2 Ordinarily, whenever a statute empowers the State Government to appoint persons to admiitister any of the provisions of the statute, the persons B who may be appointed by the State Government under such provision can only be persons appointed in connection with the affairs of the State. In other words they should be employees or officers of the State Government, who are subject to the administrative and disciplinary control of the State Government directly. 13 The expression 'other person' mentioned in section 129A of the Act which has to be read ejusdem generis with the words 'any police officer' which precede that expression in section 129 A of the Act can only refer to an officer of the Government and not to any officer or employee of any statutory corporation or to any other private person. [314 G] l A A reading of section 129A and section 133A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 together shows that the 'other person'referred to in section 129A of the Act, who may be empowered to discharge the powers under that section c D can only mean an officer of the Government, such as the Motor Vehicles Officer appointed under section 133A of the Act or of any other department. It could never have been the intention of the Central Legislature, while enacting E section 129A and section l33A of the Act that the powers exercisable under section 129 A of the Act could be conferred on persons who were not officers of the Government. If the Central Legislat~re intended that such powers could be entrusted to private persons or employees of any statutory Corporation the section would have expressly provided in that regard. [313 H-314 BJ ~ r 1.5 Under the Rajasthan State Road established under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act LXIV of 1950, the officers and servants of the Corporation are not holders of civil posts under the State Government
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.