Permit selection marking rules valid where they guide discretion and support statutory public interest preference

A marking rule awarding five marks to a State Transport Undertaking under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1939 was treated as a valid guide for permit selection because it supported the statutory object of public interest under Section 47(1) without removing the authority's discretion. The classification was held to have a rational nexus with service of the travelling public, and the proviso to Section 47(1) was read as creating only a preference where applicants were otherwise equal. No implied repeal or repugnancy was found, so the challenge to the rule failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 155A(3)(D)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1939, which awarded five marks to a State Transport Undertaking, was invalid as inconsistent with the scheme of Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended, impliedly repealed or excluded the operation of Rule 155A(3)(D)(i).

Issue (i): Whether Rule 155A(3)(D)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1939, which awarded five marks to a State Transport Undertaking, was invalid as inconsistent with the scheme of Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Analysis: The marking rule was treated as a guiding device meant to assist the permit-granting authority in applying the dominant statutory consideration of public interest under Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The State Transport Undertaking was regarded as a distinct category in a welfare-oriented mixed economy, and the classification was held to have a rational nexus with the object of serving the travelling public. The rule did not eliminate the authority's discretion, because marks were to guide and not govern the final choice.

Conclusion: The rule was held valid and not inconsistent with Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended, impliedly repealed or excluded the operation of Rule 155A(3)(D)(i).

Analysis: The proviso was read as creating a preference for a State Transport Undertaking only where other conditions were equal, and not as imposing a negative prohibition against any further administrative guidance. The rule was held to work with the proviso by making comparison between dissimilar applicants practicable and by giving effect to the statutory preference in a workable manner. No repugnancy or implied repeal was found.

Conclusion: The proviso did not impliedly repeal or invalidate Rule 155A(3)(D)(i).

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the impugned marking rule failed, and the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate rule that assigns marks to guide selection for permits is valid if it advances the statutory object of public interest, preserves the authority's discretion, and is consistent with a statutory preference operating only where competing conditions are otherwise equal.

---