Quasi-judicial permit transfer power cannot be fettered by executive direction; sanctioned transfer defeats later withdrawal of consent.

Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be used by executive order to control the quasi-judicial discretion of the Regional Transport Authority in permit transfers, so a direction requiring prior confirmation by the Transport Commissioner was invalid. The transfer proposal, having been agreed during the permit-holder's lifetime, paid for, and already recorded by the authority as unobjectionable, was treated as sanctioned once the unlawful confirmation requirement was disregarded. Rule 199-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, applied only before sanction and did not permit withdrawal of consent after transfer had become effective. The transfer in favour of the Roadways was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could, by executive order under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, direct the Regional Transport Authority to submit proposals for transfer of permits to the Transport Commissioner for confirmation. (ii) Whether the transfer of the permit in favour of the Roadways had become effective so that Rule 199-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, did not permit withdrawal of consent after the sanctioning order.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could, by executive order under Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, direct the Regional Transport Authority to submit proposals for transfer of permits to the Transport Commissioner for confirmation.

Analysis: The power to grant or sanction transfer of a permit under the Act is quasi-judicial in character. Section 43-A authorises general orders and directions only in relation to administrative matters, and not to control or fetter the exercise of quasi-judicial discretion by the Transport Authority. An executive instruction requiring all transfer proposals to be submitted to the Transport Commissioner for confirmation was therefore beyond the scope of the statutory power.

Conclusion: The executive order was invalid, and the Regional Transport Authority could not be compelled to route the transfer proposal for confirmation.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer of the permit in favour of the Roadways had become effective so that Rule 199-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, did not permit withdrawal of consent after the sanctioning order.

Analysis: The transfer agreement had been entered into during the lifetime of the permit-holder, the consideration had been paid, and the Regional Transport Authority had already recorded that it saw no objection to the transfer. Once the impermissible requirement of confirmation was ignored, that order amounted to sanction of the transfer. Rule 199-A applies only where consent is withdrawn before transfer is sanctioned, and does not operate after sanction has been made effective. The death of the original permit-holder did not undo the completed transfer.

Conclusion: The transfer had become effective in favour of the Roadways, and Rule 199-A could not be invoked to withdraw consent thereafter.

Final Conclusion: The appeals by the Roadways succeeded on the central issue of transfer, while the appeal challenging the transfer failed, and the transfer in favour of the Roadways was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 43-A cannot be used to control the quasi-judicial exercise of statutory power by a transport authority, and once a transfer of permit is sanctioned, a later withdrawal of consent under Rule 199-A is not available.

---