TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (2) TMI 138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, under Sec. 68-F(1) and 68-F (2) (c) (i) of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, and the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, and in some petitions, the State of Andhra Pradesh have been impleaded as respondents. The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has filed counter affidavits traversing the allegations made by the petitioners, and those affidavits have been in the main adopted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, has also filed counter affidavits. Several questions have been raised and debated at the bar at length. Before considering the various contentions, it would be necessary to state in a brief outline, the circumstances leading up to the presentation of these petitions. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) published in the Andhra Pradesh State Gazette dated 26-5-1960, the different and independent schemes under Sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) with reference. to Guntur District proposing to take over the road transport services on the routes specified in the said schemes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... objectors were present in person and some of them were represented by counsel. Various arguments were raised and after hearing the counsel for the Corporation, the Chief Minister considered the objections raised seriatim and held that there was no substance in any of them. During the course of the enquiry, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation filed a written memorandum requesting that in the scheme published at page 859 of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 26th May, 1950, a few routes be modified in the manner suggested. The modifications requested were allowed to fee made. The Chief Minister approved the schemes on 15-10-1961 and directed their publication in the Andhra Pradesh gazette. The schemes were published on 16-10-1961 as G. O. Ms. Nos. 2071 to 2075. 4. Thereupon, the Corporation filed applications dated 17-10-61 before the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur for the grant of stage carriage permits in accordance with the approved schemes with effect from 1-12-1961. Those applications were received by the Regional Transport Authority, on 19-10-1961. On 27-10-1961 the Regional Transport Authority issued notices to the operators stating that at the meeting to be he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1957, has not been given to the operators before rendering the permits ineffective beyond a specified date. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the respondents, has contended that there is no force in any of the objections raised by the petitioners, that the schemes were approved strictly in conformity with law, that the consequential action was taken by the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder, and that all objections contra are devoid of any substance. 6. The objections of the petitioners will be considered seriatim. 7. The first objection relates, to the inclusion of the routes not notified under Sec. 68-C in the approved scheme by way of modification. This objection, though raised in all the petitions, directly arises in W. P. Nos. 1249 and 1258 of 1961, and they will, therefore, be taken up for consideration first. 8. W. P. No. 1249 of 1961: This petition is filed by two operators, Damineni Sangayya and Bandlamudi Subbayya. They ply their vehicles (A. P. G. 1481 and A. P. G. 1449 respectively) under stage carriage permits vaild upto 30-7-1962, on the route Gunt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion, he was instructed to state that the routes Guntur to Ponnekallu via Lam and Tadikonda Junction (involved in W. P. No. 1249 of 1961) and Sattennapalli to Madipadu via Achampet (involved in W. P. No. 1258 of 1961) would be excluded from the implementation of G. O. Ms. No. 2071 dated 16-10-1961, without however, prejudice to action being taken to nationalise the road transport service on the two routes in question in conformity with Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate-General it is unnecessary to deal with the several contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the two petitions. The writ petitions, 1249 and 1258 of 1961 are, therefore allowed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 50/- in each case. A direction Will issue to the respondents that the two routes in question, namely, Guntur to Ponnekallu via Lam and Tadikonda Junction, and Sathenapalli to Madipadu via Achampet, be deleted from the scheme published as G. O. Ms. No. 2071 dated 16-10-1961. This order will not preclude any action being taken for the nationalisation of those routes in conformity with law. 11. Though in view of the statement of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eneral of Canada, AIR 1948 PC 194 at p. 199, Viscount Simon put the rule this way : The real question is whether what remains is so inextricably bound up with the part declared invalid, that what remains cannot independently survive or, as it has sometimes been put, whether on a fair review of the whole matter it can be assumed that the Legislature would have enacted that survives without enacting the part that is ultra vires at all. The scheme approved and published as G. O. Ms. No. 2071 includes seven routes. These routes are distinct and separable. In fact, it is the case of the petitioners that the two routes in question are distinct and independent routes. Even if the inclusion of these two routes in the approved scheme is not valid by reason of their not having been included in the scheme published under Section 68-C, I do not think that the rest of the routes are in any way affected. They are, in my view, clearly separable. Mr. Suryanarayana referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, ((S) 1957 SCJ 133 : AIR 1957 SC 164). The case arose out of an order of detention made by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rly separable from the rest and that the rest of the scheme will not, in any manner, be affected if the two routes in question are excluded. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore is rejected. 13. It now remains to consider the wider contention namely, that if one scheme is held to be bad all other schemes approved with it must also be declared bad, as all the. schemes constitute one larger integrated scheme for the purpose of achieving co-ordination of road transport service. I have taken the view that the scheme published in G. O. Ms. No. 2071 on 16-10-1961 is not open to any of the objections raised by the petitioners. That being so, the further argument as to the impact of the defective scheme on the other schemes does not fall to be decided. Further, in T. Butchiramayya v. Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, W. P. Nos. 389, 412, 424 and 452 of 1961 (AP) a Bench of this Court consisting of Manoher Pershad and Kumarayya JJ. held as follows : There is equally no force in the contention of the learned counsel that since certain schemes have been quashed, co-ordination is disturbed and hence the objection with regard to ail must be h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an approved scheme, the State Transport undertaking, applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV of the Act for the grant of permits, the Regional Transport Authority should issue such permits. The applications for permits must, therefore, be made in conformity with Chapter IV. Under Section 57 (2), which occurs in Chapter IV, the applications for the grant of permits must be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permits should take effect. It is argued that in the instant cases the applications were not made in accordance with Section 57 (2) aforesaid and that, therefore, the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in granting permits to the Corporation with effect from 1-12-1961 and rendering the existing permits of the various operators ineffective beyond 30-11-1961 are illegal and without jurisdiction. 16. In order to appreciate this contention it would be necessary to state a few facts. The schemes were approved by the Chief Minister on 15-10-1961 with certain modifications in respect of some of them. The schemes were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 16-10-1961. On 17-10-1961 applications for the stage carriage per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon a few observations of Chitty J., in Re. Railway Sleepers Supply Co. (1885)-29 Ch. D. 204. In that case, the words 'not less than 14 days' occurring in Section 51 of the English Companies Act, 1862, before the meeting passing a special resolution and the meeting confirming it had to be construed. Chitty, J., held that the words 'not less than 14 days' mean that there should be an interval of 14 clear days exclusive of the respective days of the meetings. It is true that the learned Judge observed that the object of having 14 clear days was to assist the share-holders. But I cannot agree that the supposed intention of the Legislature was the governing factor in the decision. Nor can I assent to the contention that the words 'not less than six weeks' must be construed in the light of the requirement of S. 57(3), and when so construed, it may not be necessary to have six clear weeks. When expressions 'not less than so many days' occur in enactments, it seems to me that there are two terminal points, and the period specified must be outside those two terminal points. The following passage in the judgment of Stone, C. J., in Commissioner Of Income-t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....six clear weeks, i.e., 42 days, exclusive of the date of the applications and the date in which they are desired to take effect. 19. In this case, the applications were desired to take effect on 1-12-1961. If the applications therefor should have been made not less than six weeks before that date they should have been made on 19-10-1961. It, therefore, becomes very important to examine first, whether the applications were presented on that date and secondly whether they could have been received on that day. That as a matter of fact, the applications were filed and received in the office of the Regional Transport Authority on 19-10-1961 is beyond dispute. Mr. K. Prasada Rao, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Guntur, has filed an affidavit stating that the applications for the grant of stage carriage permits in pursuance of the approved schemes were made by the Corporation on 19-10-1961, that he was in the office on that date, and that the applications along with other papers received were put up to him as a matter of course. I have no reason to entertain any doubt whatever as to the accuracy of the statement of a responsible officer like the Secretary of the Regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e received the applications on 19-10-1961. That being so, I hold that the applications for the grant of stage carriage permits were not only factually made on 19-10-1961 but that they were duly received in the office of the Regional Transport Authority on 19-10-1961. 20. In view of the conclusion I have reached above that there was presentation of the applications on 19-10-1961, it is unnecessary to consider the alternative contention of the learned Advocate-General, that even if the applications are deemed in law to have been made on 20-10-1961, it would still be a proper presentation according to Section 57(2) of the Act. 21. It is then contended that even, if the applications were, presented and duly received on 19-10-1961, they cannot be deemed to have been legally presented on that date by reason of the fact that the requisite fee as provided under R. 167 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Code had not been paid. It is true that on 19-10-1961the challans for the payment of Rs. 12/- per vehicle had not been presented. The Regional Transport Officer has stated that he returned the applications with an endorsement for rectifying the defects, and that the Corporation represented t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a permit solely on any or all of the following technical grounds: i) when an application is presented to a Transport authority not having jurisdiction; ii) when the form of application has not been correctly filled in: and iii) where the prescribed fee has been omitted to para be paid. In every such case, the Transport Authority should return the application for presentation to the Transport Authority concerned or for rectification of other defects informing the applicants of the correct procedure in the matter and giving him not more than seven days from the date of receipt of the communication to comply with such direction. It is abundantly clear to me that under the terms of the above rule, the Regional Transport Officer was legally justified in returning the applications for the stage carriage permits presented by the Corporation on 19-10-1961, for the purpose of the rectification of the defect in respect of the failure to pay the requisite fee. 22. It is then contended that R. 153-A is ultra vires, firstly because the failure to pay the requisite fee is not a mere 'technical defect' and secondly, by the process of returning the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preciate this contention. In Civil Appeal No. 347 of 1961 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that the Regional Transport Authority has the power to fix a date after the scheme has been approved by the State Government, as it is that authority which has, under Sec. 68-F, the power to issue a permit to a State Transport undertaking for plying the motor vehicles, and to cancel the existing permits. As contended by the learned Advocate-General, there is no special formality or procedure governing the fixing of the date. He has contended, and in my view rightly, that the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 9-11-1961 directing the permits of the operators ineffective beyond 30-11-1961 for giving effect to the approved scheme is itself fixing the date upon which the scheme should come into force. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention. 26. It is lastly contended that the Regional Transport Authority had not given 'due notice' within the meaning of R. 11 framed by the State Government in Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, before taking steps under Sec. 68-F the Act in implementation of the approved scheme. Rule 11 is in these terms, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is whether there was 'due notice' in regard to the rendering of the petitioners' permits ineffective beyond 30-11-1961. It has already been stated that on 19-10-1961 applications to the grant of permits were made with effect from 1-12-1961. The Regional Transport Authority gave notice on 27-10-1961, to all the operators concerned that such applications have been made, and that the Regional Transport Authority would meet on 9-11-1961 for the purpose of implementation the approved scheme and proposing to render the permits of the operators ineffective under Sec. 68-F(2) (c) (i) of the Act beyond 30-11-1961. On 9-11-1961, the Regional Transport Authority met. Several operators were represented by counsel and after hearing their objections the Regional Transport Authority passed a resolution rendering the permits of the operators ineffective beyond 30-11-1961. It is argued that the. conclusions, at the Regional Transport Authority were sent to some of the petitioners on 20th, and to some others, on 23rd November, 1961. it is argued further that the operators had invested considerable sums of money, and that they, had to close down their establishments by making arrangemen....