N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS ETC. versus S.T.A. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS ETC. 
v. 
S.T.A. AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 as amended by 
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993: 
S. 58/Ru/es 7,47 and 95-Maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum 
safe axle weight-Central Government Notifications dated 8.6. 1989 and 
18.10.1996-Notification dated 8.6.1989 challenged on the ground that it was 
A 
B 
c 
in abdication of the power given to the Central Government to prescribe the 
maximum grnss vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight-f'ending 
appeal before this Court, the Act and the Rules were amended and on D 
directions of this Court the Central Government issued Notification dated 
18.10.1996-Held, by issuance of Notification dated 18.10.1996, Central 
Government has not abdicated its power of control and prescribing specifica-
tion u/s. 58, nor is it a delegation of power to the manufacturer-Act itself 
regulates the manner in which the vehicles are to be constructed, equipped, 
fitted and maintained and various indicia have been prescribed in that E 
behalf-Manufacturer is required to conform to the specificatioM-Rule 95 
specifies the size of the tyres of the motor vehicles specified in column 1 of 
the Schedule-Rating is specified in the corresponding entry in Column 2 of 
the Schedule and the maximum weight permitted to be carried by such tyres 
is specified in Column 3--Maximum safe axle weight would always be the 
F 
criteria and the maximum vehicle weight should normally be in conformity 
with the safe axle weight. 
Administrative Law by HWR, Wade (Seventh Edition) p. 358, referred 
to. 
G 
~P 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2273-75 
of 1992 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.91J22.l.92 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 62il/90, 6964 and 14801of1991. 
H 
73 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Mrs. K. Amareswari, Rajiv Dhawan, A Raghuvir, P.P. Malhotra, 
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AV. Rangam, A Ranganadhan, R. Santhana Krish-
nan, L.N. Rao, P.P. Singh, T.N. Rao, P. Niroop, Ms. Nandini Gore, S. 
Sadasiva Reddy, Ms. S. Usha Reddy, H.A. Raichura, S.H. Raichura, V.S. 
Reddy, S.U.K. Sagar, T. Rajender Prasad, G.R.K. Prasad, K. Ram Kumar, 
B Mrs. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramanian, Y.S. Rao, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ar-
vind Kr. Sharma, Ms. Anubha Jain, P.N. Misra, S.M. Jadhav, J.M. Nanavati 
Associates and B.S. Banthia for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
Permission to file special leave petitions is granted. Delay condoned. 
Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in W.P. No. 
D 6211/90 and batch, on December 21, 1991. All the appellants are owners 
of public carriers plying in the State of Andhra Pradesh and registered 
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") 
and the Rules made thereunder. Their vehicles have 3 axles and are called 
Tauras vehicles. It is their case that due to change in the size of the tyres 
of the front axles and the rear axle and the ply rating, the maximum 
E self-laden weight got increased. Therefore, with permission of the Regional 
Transport Authority they have been plying the vehicles with increased 
laden weight from August 1988. But after March 31, 1990, they were 
interdicted on the ground that the weight was in excess of maximum 
permissible laden weight and maximum safe axle weight and as a conse-
F quence thereof their business of transporting goods has been interfered 
with unnecessarily. As this was being done under the Notification dated 
June 8, 1989 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power 
under Section 58 of the Act they challenged the said Notification as ultra 
vires the provisions of the Act. After the judgment of the High Court, the 
Rules came to be amended in 1994. When the appeals were preferred 
G before this Court, by order dated February 1, 1996 this Court pointed out 
that Central Government have to carry out the amendment to the Rules 
and the Schedule so as to bring them in conformity with the Amendment 
Act 54 of 1994. Time, when sought for to do the needful, was granted to 
the Government of India. As a result, now the notification has been issued 
H on October 18, 1996 exercising the power under Section 58(1) of the Act 
N.V. RAO v. S.T.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.