LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus B. NOORULLA KHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
B. NOORULLA KHAN AND ORS.
MAY 6, 2004
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles:
Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
Rule 297-A(J)(c)-"Common purpose of journey"-Meaning of-
Held: Passengers travelling together need to have the intention to travel
to a common destination for the same purpose as we//-R 297-A(J)(c) is
in consonance with S. 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is intra
vires the 1988 Act.
Rule 297-A(6)!J)-Conditions under-Whether ultra vires the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988-Held: R. 297-A(6)!J) does not go beyond the purview
of the 1988 Act-It carries out the purpose of the 1988 Act and is intra
vires the 1988 Act.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Sections 2(4) and (7)-"Stage carriage" and "contract carriage"-
Distinction between-Explained.
F
. Sections 88(9). (I 1) & (14) and Sections 95 & 96-All-lndia tourist
vehicles-Powers to frame rules/prescribe conditions in respect of-Held:
From a conjoint reading of Sections 88(9), (11) & (14), it is abundantly
clear that Central Government alone is authorised to frame rules/prescribe
conditions in respect of all-India tourist vehicles-State Government is not
G authorised to frame rules applicable to all-India tourist vehicles, which is
exclusively vested in the Central Government.
Words & Phrases:
"Common purpose of journey "-Meaning of-Jn the context of
4 R. 297-A(l){c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
432
STATE v. B.N. KHAN
433
"Under a contract "-Meaning of-In the context of S. 2(7) of the A
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Division Bench of the High Court had struck down Rules 297-
A(l)(c) and 297-A(6)(t) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 being ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 B
and Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution. The Division Bench had also
held that the Rules framed by the State Government under Sections
95 and 96 of the Act and the further conditions prescribed in Section
74 of the Act were not applicable to the all-India tourist permit
vehicles. Hence the appeal.
c
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has erred in holding that the "common
purpose of journey" occurring in Rule 297-A(l)(c) of the Andhra
Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 means that the passengers travelling D
together need to have the common intention to travel to a common
destination but they need not share the common intention of travelling
for the same purpose as well. [442-E]
1.2. The High Court has also erred in construing that the words E
"under a contract" occurring in Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 to mean as referring to both a single contract and more than one
contract. If such a construction is placed then the distinction between
the contract carriage and the stage carriage permits would be lost and
obliterated. [438-C-D; 442-G-H]
Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari v. State of UP., [1992] 4 SCC 703,
relied on.
F
2.1. The distinction between a stage carriage permit and a
contract carriage permit as envisaged by the Legislature has to be G
maintained as the two types of permits are intended to meet different
requirements. The contract carriages are for those who want to hire
the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their
transport to a destination /destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as
a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There H
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in
the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of
persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from
one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If such
a construction is put then there would be no distinction between stage
B carriage or contract carriage permits. If contract carriage permit
holder is permitted to pick up an individual or a few of them from the
starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the
route it would virtually be a stage carriage with corridor restriction.
Stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general
C public travelling from one destination to another having different
purposes whereas a contract carriage is meant for those who want to
hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport
from one destination to another haviExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.