REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHITTOOR ETC. versus ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, MADRAS (P) LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 05-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~627 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHITTOOR ETC. 
v. 
ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, MADRAS (P) LTD. & ORS. 
September 5, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Motor VehiCles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 
1954, ·Section 4(1}--Power to make rules under Section 4(1)-A delegate cannot 
exercise the same power of the delegator unless there is svecial conferment 
thereof. 
Retrospectivity in the rule-making power-Mere fact that the rules framed 
by the State Government (delegate) had to be ,placed on the ·table of the 
Legislature does not automatically empower the former to make retrospective 
rules. 
I 
I 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD : '(1) The legislature ha~ no doubt bienary power in the matter 
of enactment of statutes and can itself make retrospective laws subject, 
of 
course, to the constitutional limitations. 
But it is trite Jaw that a delegate 
cannot exercise the same power unless there is special conferment thereof to 
be spelled out from the express words of the delegation or by compelling 
implication. In the present case the power under Section 4(2) docs not i".ldicate 
either alternative. 
Therefore the authority of the State Government under 
the delegation does not empower it to make retmopective rules. 
[629 A-B; 
630B] 
(2) The mere fact that the rules framed had to be placed on the table 
of the legislature. was not enough, in the absence of a wider power in the 
Section, fo enable the State Government to make retrospective rules. The whole 
purpose of laying on the table of the legislature the rules framed by the State 
Government is different. [629 EJ 
Hukum Chand v. Union of India, [1973] 1 S.C.R. 896 (902), followed. 
Observation: The State Government should have been more careful in 
giving effect to the resolution passed by the legislature and should not have 
relied upon its delegated powers which did not carry with it the powers to 
make retrospective rules. [629 CJ 
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 301-303 of 
1970. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17-11-1967 cf the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 138/63, 1256/63 ·and 1460/ 
63. 
A. V. V. Nair for the Appellant. 
K. Rajendra Chowdhary for the Respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
F 
ll 
628 
SUPREME COUltT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-We are in complete agreement with the rea· 
soning and conclusions of the High Court and a brief statement of 
the short point that arises for decision and of the grounds for dismis· 
sing the appeal is all that is needed. The Motor Vehicles (Taxation of 
B 
Passengers and Goods) Act passed by the Madras legislature in the 
composite Madras State was made applicable to Andhra Pradesh when 
that State was carved out. · There were certain difficulties in the matter 
of levy of taxation on vehicles plying on inter-state routes and the 
State of Andhra Pradesh thought it fit to enact its own legislation, which 
it did in the form of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation 
,C 
of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1952, Section 4(2) whereof empowered 
the State Govemm,ent to make necessary rules to effectuate the enact-
. ment. 
Pursuant to this power, certain rules were framed, of which 
·rule 1 consisted of three sub-rul.es. 
On 19-6-1957 sub-rules (4) and 
(5) were added to that rule and sub-rule (5) ran thus : 
D 
"The proviso to sub-rule l of Rule 1 shall cease to ·be opera· 
tive on and from 1st October, 1955 and the composition fee cal-
culated with r.eference to clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1) 
in respect of vehicle plying on inter State routes lying partly in 
Madras State and partly in the Andhra State shall. with effect from 
that date be paid in the State where the vehicles are registered 
E 
and normally kept." 
F 
G 
H 
This sub-rule enabled operators of Motor Vehicles on inter-state 
routes lying partly in the Madras State and partly in the State of 
· Andhra Pradesh to pay the tax duly to either of these two Sitates. 
It 
was, however, deleted along with sub-rules (3) and (4) on 29th March, 
1963 with effect from 1st April, 1962 and it is the retrospectivity of 
the deletion that is challenged before us because the Andhra Pradesh 
State sought to collect tax for the period commencing 1st April, 1962 
from the respondent under the Act above referred to, although he 
had already paid the same to the State of Madras. The ground of 
invalidity was stated to be that S

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