# CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI ANDO~ v. CHADHA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 359
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-03-04
- **Case number:** Civil App\llll No. 466 of 1965
- **Bench:** C. Shah, R. S. Bachawat, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chief-commissioner-delhi-ando-v-chadha-motor-transport-co-4396
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

c
D
F
G
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 68(2) (ww)-P.,.soru doing th• bwinoss
of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carrl•d by public carri<rs
required by notification under S<ction to takt out /lc<ne<g-Validity of
notification and section.
'The respondent was engaged in the busines.'I of collecting, forwarding
and distributing goods carried by public carriers in Delhi, The Chief CommiMioner, Delhi issued a notification under s. 68(2) (ww) of the Motor
Yehic!Q ·Act, 1939 whereby the respondent and those en23l!ed in similar
businas were required to take out licen=. The respondent filed a writ
petition in the Punjab High Court challenging cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) and
tho aforesaid notification on various grounds and askin~ for an order
quashing the notification. The High Cowt allowed the wnt petition holding that as the rules frame undtt s. 68 can be made only for the purpose
of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV of tho Act, and in
Chapter IV there was no substantive provision requiring agents engaged in
the business of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by
public carriers to take out licences, the lej!islature had no power to enact
cl. (WW) of s. 68(2) authorising the framing of the rules f<t the licensing
of sudl agents. The appellants came to this Court with certificate,
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
Section 68(2) specifically enumerates the matter on which rulea under
the ooelion can be made for the purpose of carrying into effect tbe provisions of Chapter IV. Clau5e (ww) of o. 68(2) is an expression of the
will of the legislature that rules for the licensing of agents engaj!ed in
the business of collecting. forwarding and distributing goods carried by
public carriers may be made for the purpose of carryin~ into effect the
provisions of Chapter IV. The proposition that the legislature must in
the first instance incorporate in the Act a oection requiring a class of persons to take out licences before it can enact a section authorising the
mding of rules for such licensing is unsound and must be rejected. Within
the limits of their legislative powers, parliament and the State legislatures
have plenary powers of legislation and th!')' may. delegate to an executive
authority the power to make rules for the licensing of any class of persons.
[360 H-361 C]
[Csse remanded to High Court for considering other contentions raised
in the petition.]

## Text

A
CHIEF COMMISSIONER, DELHI ANDO~.
v.
CHADHA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO.
March 4, 1968
a
[J, C. SHAH, R. S. BACHAWAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
c
D
F
G
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 68(2) (ww)-P.,.soru doing th• bwinoss
of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carrl•d by public carri<rs
required by notification under S<ction to takt out /lc<ne<g-Validity of
notification and section.
'The respondent was engaged in the busines.'I of collecting, forwarding
and distributing goods carried by public carriers in Delhi, The Chief CommiMioner, Delhi issued a notification under s. 68(2) (ww) of the Motor
Yehic!Q ·Act, 1939 whereby the respondent and those en23l!ed in similar
businas were required to take out licen=. The respondent filed a writ
petition in the Punjab High Court challenging cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) and
tho aforesaid notification on various grounds and askin~ for an order
quashing the notification. The High Cowt allowed the wnt petition holding that as the rules frame undtt s. 68 can be made only for the purpose
of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV of tho Act, and in
Chapter IV there was no substantive provision requiring agents engaged in
the business of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by
public carriers to take out licences, the lej!islature had no power to enact
cl. (WW) of s. 68(2) authorising the framing of the rules f<t the licensing
of sudl agents. The appellants came to this Court with certificate,
HELD : The appeal must be allowed.
Section 68(2) specifically enumerates the matter on which rulea under
the ooelion can be made for the purpose of carrying into effect tbe provisions of Chapter IV. Clau5e (ww) of o. 68(2) is an expression of the
will of the legislature that rules for the licensing of agents engaj!ed in
the business of collecting. forwarding and distributing goods carried by
public carriers may be made for the purpose of carryin~ into effect the
provisions of Chapter IV. The proposition that the legislature must in
the first instance incorporate in the Act a oection requiring a class of persons to take out licences before it can enact a section authorising the
mding of rules for such licensing is unsound and must be rejected. Within
the limits of their legislative powers, parliament and the State legislatures
have plenary powers of legislation and th!')' may. delegate to an executive
authority the power to make rules for the licensing of any class of persons.
[360 H-361 C]
[Csse remanded to High Court for considering other contentions raised
in the petition.]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App\llll No. 466 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1961
of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent
H
Appeal No. 15-D of 1958.
B. R. L. Iyengar and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants.
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent.
L6 Sup, C.L/61!-10
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. The respond~t carries on the business of col-.
lecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public carriers in Delhi. On October 27, 1956,. the. Chief Commissioner,
Delhi issued a notification under s. 68(2)(ww) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Under this notification, the respondent and
other agents engaged in the business of collecting, forwarding
and distributing goods carried by public carriers are required to
take out licences.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the
Punjab High Court challenging cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) and the aforesaid notification on various grounds and asking for an order quashing the notification. A single Judge of the High Court struck
down cl. (ww) and allowed the writ petition. He held that the
clause was ultra vires and invalid and therefore the notification
issued under it was also invalid.
His decision was affirmed on
Letters Patent Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellants have preferred the present appeal from this order
after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.
Chapter N of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides for
control of transport vehicles. · The chapter contains ss. 42 to
68. Section 68(1) provides that a State Government may make
rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of
Chap. N. Section 68(2) provides that without prejudice to the
generality of the, foregoing power, rules under the section may be
made with respect to all or any of the matters enumerated in •.he
various sub-clauses thereof. Clause (ww) of s. 68(2) provides that
the State Government may make rules for ''the licensing of agents
engaged in the business of collecting, forwarding and distributing
of goods carried by public carriers." This clause was in8erted in
s. 68(2) by Delhi Act No. 5 of 1954 and also later by Central
.Act No. 100 Of 1956.
The High Court held that as the rules framed under s. 68
can ~ made only for the .Purpose of carrying into effect the
prov1S1ons of Chap. N, such rules must relate to a substantive
provision- of law in the chapter.
As there was no substantive
provision· in Chap. N requiring agents engaged in the business
of collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public
carriers to take out licences, the legislature had no. power to
enact cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) authorising the framing of rules for
the licensing of such agents.
The legislature must, in the first
#!stance, make a law requiring such agents to take out licences.
As the legislature did not make such a law, the clause is ultra
vires its powers and is invalid.
We are unable to accept this line of reasoning. Section 68(2)
specifically enumerates the matters on which rules under the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
JI
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHIEF COMMR. DELHI v. CHADHA MOTOR (Bachawat, !.)
361
section can be made for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of Chap. IV. Clause (ww) of s. 68(2) is an expression
of the will of the legislature that rules for the licensing of agents
engaged in the business of collecting, forwarding and distributing
goods carried by public carr!e;s may be made for the purpo~. of
carrying into effect the prov1s10ns of Chap. IV. The propos1t10n
that the legislature must in the first instance incorporate in the
Act a section requiring a class of persons to take out licences
before it can enact a section authorising the making of rules for
such licensing is unsound and must be rejected.. Within the limits
of their legislative powers, Parliament · and the State legislatures
have plenary powers of legislation, and they may delegate to an
executive authority the power to make rules for the licensing of
any class of persons. This law may be open to attack on the
ground that it is not on a matter on which the legislature is competent to legislate or on the ground that there is· excessive delegation of legislative power.
But it cannot be struck down on
the ground that . the fogislature has made no other provision for
licensing in the body of the Act. There is no constitutional prOhibition against the making of a law authorising the making of
rules on~any topic without the support of another substantive
provision of law in the body of the Act. Take Chap. VII of the
Motor Vehicles Act dealing with motor vehicles temporarily leaving or visiting India. That chapter contains one section, namely,
s. 92. The section provides for the making of rules only. It
authl>rises the Central Government to make rules inter a/ia for
the grant and authentication of travelling passes, certificates or
authorisations to persons temporarily taking motor vehicles out
of India to any place outside India and prescribing the conditions
subject to which motor vehicles brought temporarily into India
from outside India by persons intending to make a temporary stay
in India may be possessed and used in India. There is no other
substalltive provision of law in Chap. VII or any other Chapter
of the Act on the subject of motor vehicles temporarily leaving or
visiting India. But the absence of such a substantive provision
does not render either s. 92 or the rules made under it invalid.
If the Central Government frame• rules under s. 92, such rules
must be complied' with.
We, therefore, hold that cl. (ww) of s. 68(2) cannot ·be struck
down on the ground that there is no other substantive provision
of law in the body of the Act requiring the taking out of licences.
On behalf of the respondent it was suggested that the clause is
invalid on the ground that it is a law on a subject on which the
legisl_a~e is not competent to legisl~te. It was also suggested
that 1t 1s bad o_n the ground of excessive delegation of legislative
power. The High Court has not struck down the clause on either
of these grounds. . Nor has the High. Court considered the othct
362
SUPRBMB COURT RBPOllTS
[1968) 3 S.C.ll.
grounds raised in the petition challenging the validity of the noti·
A
fication dated October 27, 1956. As the High Court has not
dealt with the other contentions raised in the petition, the matter
must be remanded to the High Court.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High
Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court,
so that the High Court may deal with it in accordance with law.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to
costs in this Court.
G.C.
Appeal 11llowed.
B
'