S. SRIKANTIAH & ORS. versus THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ANANTAPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 07-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

816 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
·G 
H 
S. SRIKANTIAH & ORS. 
v. 
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 
ANANTAPUR & ORS. 
May 7, 1971 
[S. M. SIICRI, C. J., G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGAN· 
MOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Good•) Act 16 
of 1952 and The Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers Goods) A.ndhra 
Pradesh (Amendment) Act 1959-Notification issued under s. 43 of A.ct 
authorising enhancement of fares by operators-No consequential ·amend~ 
ment made in permits held by operators-Once NotificatiOn is issued under 
s. 43 the conditions of permits stand statutorily amended by' virtue of s. 59 
(3) (c). 
The Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act 
1952 became applicable to the State of Andhra and subsequenUy to Andhra 
Pradesh when the respective reorganisation of States took place in 1953 
and 1956. In 1959 the Andhra Pradesh legislature enacted the Motor Vehi· 
cles (Thxation of Passengers and Goods) Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act 
with a view to augmenting the revenue of the State. By this Act the rates 
in respect of state carriages as well as good9 vehicles were increased. The 
Act came into force with effect from 8th May 1959. On 7th May 1959 
by G.O. Ms. No. 1077 the State Transport Authority was directed by 
the Government to fix maximum fares inclusive of the leviable ta'X. under 
the Act for the state carriages in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 1959 
amendment was struck down by the High Court The legislature there· 
after passed Act 34 of 1961 by validating the levy under the Act which 
bad been struck down by the High Court and also for imposition of a 
surcharge. The operators again questioned the Amendment Act of 1961 on 
the ground that they had not collected the fares on the enhanced rates fix-
ed by the Transport Authority because by the conditions of their permit 
they were precluded from collecting the fares at a rate higher than 7 t pies 
or 4 NP per passenger per mile. 
In view of the fact that the Regional 
Transport Authorities had not taken action to modify that conditk,n suit-
ably they could not collect .this amount and therefore were not liable to 
pay surcharge at enhan,ced rates. The High Court held that the directions 
issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1077 of 7th May 1959 pur-
suant to which the Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated 
12th May 1959 called upon the Regional Transport Officers to notify the 
operators and which the said officers had notified authorising them to 
collect the enhanced fares was sufficient authorisation for them to collect 
the enhanced fares as if the fare tables had been amended. The operators 
appealed to this Court. The constitutionality of the surcharge having been 
upheld by this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service etc. etc. v. StaJe of Andhra 
Pradesh & Anr., (1970r 2 S.C.R. 52, the only question that survived for 
consideration was whether there was any impediment preventina: the opera-
tors from collectina the enharced fares without the conditions of the per· 
mit being amended. 
HELD : In view of the direction• given by the Government in it• 
notification under s. 43 the Regional Transport Authority called upon the 
Regional Transport Ofticers to notify the operators to collect the enhonced 
s. SRIKANTIA!I v,.l\BGI01'\AL TRANSPORT (Jaganmohan Reddy. J.) 
fares and accordingly the officers concerned in compliance with these dircc~ 
tion• notified the operators. Once the provisions of section 43(1)(i) and 
44(4) are complied with section 59(3) (c) comes into play and it has the 
effect of incorporating the maximum fares as notified includina the tax 
Jeviable, as a condition of the permit. This being the lcsal position there 
was no justification for the contention that the collection by the operaton 
of the enham:ed fares without the table of fares being amended would en· 
tail the cancellation of the permits. [820G-H] 
Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of MadhyQ Pra· 
desh, A.l.R. (Vol. 49) 1962 M.P. 108, distin&uished. 
. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1332 
of 1968. 
817 
A 
B 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 3, 
c 
1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 201 
of 1963. 
K. Mangachari, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Cltdudhury, 
for the appellants. 
· 
· · · 
· 
P. Ram Reddy and G. S. Rama Rao, for the respondent. 
• 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. Japnmoban Reddy, J.-T

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