Statutory directions under the Motor Vehicles Act prevailed over a conflicting transport authority resolution on inter-state permits.
The Motor Vehicles Act was construed to allow the State Transport Authority to perform Regional Transport Authority duties only in the contingencies stated in section 44(3)(b), and the saving clause was read as applying only where there is an express statutory bar. However, the State Transport Authority remained bound by valid directions issued by the State Government under section 43, and could not resolve inconsistently with them. Because the relevant direction left the inter-state permit function with the Regional Transport Authority, the later resolution was ineffective to displace that mandate. The permit application had therefore to be considered in accordance with the statutory direction, not the conflicting resolution.
Issues: (i) Whether the State Transport Authority could lawfully perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority under section 44(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the circumstances stated; (ii) Whether the resolution of the State Transport Authority could override the binding directions issued by the State Government under section 43(1)(iv) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Issue (i): Whether the State Transport Authority could lawfully perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority under section 44(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the circumstances stated.
Analysis: The provision was construed as permitting the State Transport Authority to act in three contingencies: where no Regional Transport Authority exists, where it thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of a route common to two or more regions, and where it is required by the Regional Transport Authority to do so. The words "save as otherwise provided by or under this Act" were read as referring only to an express bar, so the power under clause (b) was not negatived merely because other provisions assigned duties to the Regional Transport Authority.
Conclusion: The State Transport Authority's power under section 44(3)(b) was not excluded on the first ground urged, and the broader construction adopted by the High Court was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the resolution of the State Transport Authority could override the binding directions issued by the State Government under section 43(1)(iv) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Analysis: Section 44(3) required the State Transport Authority to give effect to directions issued under section 43. The notification of 14 December 1966 was treated as binding and the State Transport Authority could not function contrary to it. Since the route in question was an inter-state route, the direction left the relevant function with the Regional Transport Authority, and the later resolution by the State Transport Authority was inconsistent with that direction.
Conclusion: The resolution was invalid to the extent it conflicted with the section 43 direction, and the Regional Transport Authority alone was competent to deal with the inter-state permit application.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the High Court's direction requiring consideration of the permit application in accordance with law was sustained, while the impugned resolution could not displace the statutory direction issued by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: A transport authority subordinate to statutory directions cannot act contrary to a valid direction issued under section 43, and a saving clause in section 44(3)(b) operates only where there is an express statutory bar.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
