# INTER STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, NEW DELffi v. P. MANJUNAm KAMAm & ORS

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 765
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-08-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1084 &: 1091 of 1967
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, I. D. Dua, M. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inter-state-transport-commission-new-delffi-v-p-manjunam-kamam-ors-5715
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 63A (2)(c)-Directions under section by
Jrter-State Transport Commission are administrative In character-Cannot bind Transpon! Authorities in the 11jX'ercise of their quasi-judicial func1ions in granting permits etc.
The Inter-State Transport Commission issued directions under s. 63A
(2)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 laying down that permits by the
concerned authorities should be issued in a certain order of preference.
The respondents who were appik'ants for permits for inter-State routes
were adversely affected and jn writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution challengec;I the competence of the. Commission to issue binding
directions under s. 63A(2) (c) to a subordinate authority in respect of tho
~ercise of quasi-judicial functions.
The High Court al1-ed the writ
petitions. In appeal by the Commission to this Court.
HELD : It is important to notice that the Act has not conferred any
power on the Commission ti> .make Rules. In the absence of any power
to enact subordinate legislation by way of rules the delegation of legillative power cannot be lightly inferred. The power to make rules bas been
Ollpressly conferred on the Central Government under s. 133 ( 1) and is
subject to procedural safeguards. [770 GI
This Court in Naidu's case held that the Transport Authorities in
dealing with applications for permits and assessing the respective or rival
claims of the J)arties discharge quasi-judicial functions and their orders
are quasi-judici!ll orderilc It is therefore essential to fundamentals of fairplay in the administration of law that the decision of these Transport
Authorities in the matter of grant of permits should not be clogged by
directions indicating the orders of preference as happened in the present
case.
(771 DJ
When the Act itself in s. 55 provides preference to Cooperative Societies, as far as possible. it is not appropriate to hold that the Commission
would have power to po the identical things.
In the present case, the
Commission did not rest merely with. giving the first prciference to Co·
operative Societies.
The Commission thereafter indicated the order of
preferenc~ to · Transport Cooperative
Societies,
Limited OJmpanies,
Registered 'firms and lastly to others. [771 Fl
It is apparent that the order of preference indicated in the garb of
direction.• is an encroachment upon the jdicial discretion of the Transport Authorities in the matter of grant of permits. (771 G]
The power of the Inter-State Transport Commission under section
63A(2)(c) of the Act to issue directions is referable only to directions of
executive and administrative nature. The Commission has no power to
~ntrench upon the quasi-judicial functions of the Transport Au.horities
m the matter of grant of permits. The order of the High Court in quashing the direction must therefore be upheld. [772 Al
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport ,4ppellate Tribunal & Ors.,
[1964] 7 S.C.R. l, applied.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
765
INTER STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSION, NEW DELffi
v.
P. MANJUNAm KAMAm & ORS.
August 2, 1972
[A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA AND M. H. BEG, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 63A (2)(c)-Directions under section by
Jrter-State Transport Commission are administrative In character-Cannot bind Transpon! Authorities in the 11jX'ercise of their quasi-judicial func1ions in granting permits etc.
The Inter-State Transport Commission issued directions under s. 63A
(2)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 laying down that permits by the
concerned authorities should be issued in a certain order of preference.
The respondents who were appik'ants for permits for inter-State routes
were adversely affected and jn writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution challengec;I the competence of the. Commission to issue binding
directions under s. 63A(2) (c) to a subordinate authority in respect of tho
~ercise of quasi-judicial functions.
The High Court al1-ed the writ
petitions. In appeal by the Commission to this Court.
HELD : It is important to notice that the Act has not conferred any
power on the Commission ti> .make Rules. In the absence of any power
to enact subordinate legislation by way of rules the delegation of legillative power cannot be lightly inferred. The power to make rules bas been
Ollpressly conferred on the Central Government under s. 133 ( 1) and is
subject to procedural safeguards. [770 GI
This Court in Naidu's case held that the Transport Authorities in
dealing with applications for permits and assessing the respective or rival
claims of the J)arties discharge quasi-judicial functions and their orders
are quasi-judici!ll orderilc It is therefore essential to fundamentals of fairplay in the administration of law that the decision of these Transport
Authorities in the matter of grant of permits should not be clogged by
directions indicating the orders of preference as happened in the present
case.
(771 DJ
When the Act itself in s. 55 provides preference to Cooperative Societies, as far as possible. it is not appropriate to hold that the Commission
would have power to po the identical things.
In the present case, the
Commission did not rest merely with. giving the first prciference to Co·
operative Societies.
The Commission thereafter indicated the order of
preferenc~ to · Transport Cooperative
Societies,
Limited OJmpanies,
Registered 'firms and lastly to others. [771 Fl
It is apparent that the order of preference indicated in the garb of
direction.• is an encroachment upon the jdicial discretion of the Transport Authorities in the matter of grant of permits. (771 G]
The power of the Inter-State Transport Commission under section
63A(2)(c) of the Act to issue directions is referable only to directions of
executive and administrative nature. The Commission has no power to
~ntrench upon the quasi-judicial functions of the Transport Au.horities
m the matter of grant of permits. The order of the High Court in quashing the direction must therefore be upheld. [772 Al
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport ,4ppellate Tribunal & Ors.,
[1964] 7 S.C.R. l, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1084
&: 1091 of 1967 and 1081 of 1970.
Appeal by certificate from the judgm·~nt and order dated the
9th June 1966 of the Mysore High Court in W.Ps. Nos. 442, 884
and 441 of 1964.
M. K. Ramamurthi and· S. P. Nayar, for the appellant in all
the appeals.
Respondent did nat appear.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ray, 1 .. -These three appeals are by certificate from the
iudl!Illents dated 9 June, 1966, 10 December, 1964 and 19 July,
1966 of the High Court of Mysore.
A
H
c
The only question which falls for consideration in these
appeals is the interpretation of section 63A(2\(c) of the Motor
D
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Civil Appeaf No. 1084 of 1967 concerns applications for
grant of permits on specified routes in the State of Maharashtra.
On 8 April, 1963, the Regional Transport Authority,
South
Kanara issued a notification under Section 57(2) of the Act inviting applications from public carriers permit holders af South
Kanara District intendi.<1g to operate their vehicles in the State
of Mahaiashtra.
The permits were under reciprocal agreement
between the State Governments of Mysore and
Maharashtra.
There were 28 vacancies for permits. 39 applications were made
for the same. The respondent Karnath in Civil Appeal No. 1984
of 1967 submitted an application for permit.
His application
was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore.
He preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal.
The Inter-State Transport Commission issued certain directions to the Regional Transport Authorities.
These directions
were issued under section 63A(2)(c) of the Act. These directions
laid down the order of preference in the grant of permits.
TI1e
Transport Authorities kept in view those directions The principal point for consideration in these appeals is whether the InterState Transport Commission was competent to do so.
Section 63A(2) of the Act deals with functions of the InterState Transport Commission. One of the principal functions i!
reoulation of the operation of transport vehicles in an inter-State
re~on. Section 45 of the Act deals with applie&tion where it is
E
F
G
H
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TRANSPORT COMMISSION v. P, M. KAMATH (Ray, J.) 767
proposed to use the vehicle in two or more different S$atis.
Section 63 of the Act requires a permit granted in any one State
to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the
Regional Transport Authority of the other .State.
Section
63
further provides that it shall not be necessary to follow the
procedure faici down in section 57 for the grant of counter-signatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State arc
required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority
of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a re~ult of any agreement arrived at between the States
after complying with the requirements of sub-section (3A), or
for the grant of counter-signatures of permits in pu~uance of any
direction issued by the Commission under clause ( c) of subsection ( 2) of section 63A.
Section 63 further provides that
the agreement between the States shall be published by each of
the States concerned in the Official Gazette together with a notice
of the date. before which representations in connection therewith
may be submitted, a'hd the date, not being less than thirty days
from the datr. of such publication, on which the representations
will be considered.
Section 63A(2)(c) of tht' Act is as follows :
"63A. (2) The Commission shall perform throughout an inter-State region all or such of the following functions as it may be authorised to do
by the Central Government by notification in
the Official Gazette, namely :-
( c) tb issue directions to the State Transport
Authorities or Regional Transport Authorities interested regarding the grant, revocation and suspension of permits and of
permits and of counter-signatures of per"
mits for the operation of transport vehicles
in respect of any route or area common to
two or more States."
The directions issued by the inter-State Transport Commission
under section 63A(2)(c) were inter alia these:
(i) Preference will be given in the following order
in the grant cif the permits.
(a) A Co-operative Society
(i) at least 50 per cent of the members of which are
not related to each other;
(ii) 75 per cent of the members of which are also
employees and
768
SUPREME COURT REPOP.TS
[1973] l s.c.R.
. (iii) the main business of which is the provision of
transport services.
(b) Transport Co-operative Societies other than the above.
(c) A limited company or a registered firm.
(d) Others.
The respondent· Karnath made an application under Article
226 of the Constitution to the Mysore High Court. The respondent Karnath challenged the decision of the Transport Autnorities. The main grounds for cliallenge were these. The InterStatc Transport Commission issued directions to the Transport
Authorities indicating the order of preference for .grant of permits. The Transport Authorities became bound by and kept in
view these directions. These directions invaded, infringed and
impin2ed on the authority and jurisdiction of the Transport Authorities for the grant of perpmits. Therefore the decisions of the
Transport Authorities were vitialted.
·
The High Court came tp the conclusion that the directions
issued by the Inter-State Transport Commission encroached on
the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority.
Civil Appeal No. 1091 of 1967 concerns the grarrt of interState permit under the reciprocal agreement between the Governments of Mysore and Maharashtra. The Regional
1 flnsport
Authority, Belgaum on 20 September, 1963 invited applications
under section 57.(2) of tl1e Act from operators holdi"" substantive
public carrier permits issued by t,hat Authority for variation of
the conditions of permit by the inclusion of three nc:n' straight
inter-St<:te routes between . the places in Belgaum District, connecting witl1 places lying in Maharashtra State in the said permit
and for grant of counter-signature by the State Transport Autho-:
rity, Maharashtra under the reciprocal agreement between the
two Stares.
The respondent J aknur submitted an application.
The total number of applications was 25.
The application of
respondent Jaknur was rejected. The respondent Jaknur thereupon made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
to the Mysore High C.:mrt.
The respondent Jaknur impeached
the decision of the Transport Authority, Belgaum on
these
grounds. . The Inter-State Transport Commission on 3 October,
1963 issued directions indicating the order of preference in the
matter of grant of perniits. These directions were the same as
in the other appeal.
The respondent Jaknur challenged the directions as violative of and infringing the quasi-judicial jurisdiction
and authority of the Transport Authorities.
The grounds for
challenge were similar to th;:ise in Civil Appeal No. 1084 of
1967. The contentions of the respondent Jaknur found favour
with the High Court.
A
B.
c
D
E
p
G
H
•
"
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
TRANSPORT COMMISSION v·. P. M. KAMATH (Ray, /,) 769
Civil Appeai No. 1081 of 1970 concerns grant of inter-Stlttc
permit for the plying of vehicles on certain specifu:d routes ·between the State of Mysore and the State of Kerala. The Regional
Transport Authority on 26 September, 1963 called from owners
of carriers who had been granted permits applications for grant
of counter-signature by the Kerala State Transport Authori~y
for plying of 1;ehicles on routes between the States of Mysore and
Kerala. There was inter-State agreement between the two Staftlll
for the plying of such vehicles. The respondent Hegde made an
application. .His application was rejected. The principal ground
for rejection of the application was that the respondent Hegde
was not in a position to command facilities to the public.
The
respondent Hcgde thereupon filed an appiication under Article
226 of the Constitution before the Mysore High Court. The
respondent Hegde challenged the deeision of the Transport Authority on grounds similar to those in Civil Appeal No. 1084 of
1967, that the decision of the Transport Authori1;y was invaded
by the direction of the Inter-State Transport Commission indicating the oi'der of preference.
Counsel for the appellant contended that under section 63A (2)
( c) of the Act the Inter-State Transport Commission was competent to issue directions to the State or the Regional Transport
Authorities regarding grant of permits, and, therefore, the indicating of order of preference in the directions amounted only to
laying down criteria to be applied in dealing with permits.
This Court in B. Rajagopa/a Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (1) construed section 43A of the Motor
Vehicles Act as inserted by the Madras Amending Act 20 of
1948. Section 43A was as follows :
"The State Government may issue such orders and
directions of a general character as it may consider
necessary, in respect cl any matter relating to road
transport, to the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority; and such Transport Authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions."
In Naidu's(') case the State Government under section 43A
of the Act l!;ave directions prescribing criteria for selection and
devised a marking system for applicants.
This Court held that
the power of the State Government to issue orders and directions in respect of any matter relating to road transport to the
State or Regional Transport Authorities did not embrace any
power of the State Government to give dirP-ctions in respect of
matters which hild been entrusted to the Tribunals constituted
under tihe Act and which are to be· dealt with by those Authorities
in quasi-judicial manner. The words "orders and directions"
(I) [1964] 7 S.C. R.I.
'110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R
y;ore held in that case to be equivalent to executive acts.
Those
words could cover only the field of
administrative orders and
directions. This Court said that the structure of the Act indicated
that section 43A of the Act did not include "the area which is
the subject-matter of the exercise of quasi-judicial authority by
lhe relevant Tribunals".
Counsel· for the appellant contended that the reasoning in
Naidu':r case (supra) could not apply to rthe interpretation of
eection 63A(2)(c) of thei Act which spoke only of "directions"
Uld not of "orders and directions''.
This contention is unsound
both on logic and principle.
Section 63A of the Act speaks ot various powers of the InterState Transport Commission.
First, there is power to prepare
IChemes for the develQPment, co-ordination or regulation of the
~ation of transport vehicles and in particular of goods vehiclca
in an inter-State region. Secondly, the Commission has power to
1ettle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of
opinion arise in connection with the development, co-ordination
or regulation of the operation of transport vehicles in an inte:rState region.
Thirdly, the Commission has power to issue directions to the State Transport Authorities or the Regional Tra.1sport
Authorities ir.terested regarding the grant, revocation and suspension of permits and
counter-signatures of permits for the
operation of transport vehicles in respect of any route or area
common to two or more States. Fourthly, the Commissiou has
.power to grant, revoke or suspend any pemit or counterL:!(n any
permit for the operation of any transport vehicles in respect of
IUCh route or area common to two or more States as may be
!lpCCified in this behalf by the Central Government. These four
powers are separate and distinct.
It is important to notice that the Act has .not conferred any
power on the Commi5sion to-miike Rules. In the absence of any
power to enact subordinate legislation by way of rules the dele--
gation of legislative power cannot be lightly inferred.
Under
section 133(1) of the Act power to make rules is conferred on
the Central Government.
Furthermore, the power to make rules
ii subject to the condition, of rules being made after previous publication. The rules so made are also to be published in the Official
Ga2t:tte.
Again, rules made by the Central Government or the
!late Government shall be laid for not less than 14 days · before
Parliament or the State Lel!;islature as the case may be. The!e
Mfeguards .are provided when power to make subordinate legisJation has been conferred on the Central Government or the Stam
Govamnent.
A
c
D
F
G
H
A
•
c
D
F
G
H
TRANSPORT COMMISSION V. P. M. KAMATH (Ray, J.) 771
The provisions contained in section 63A( 4) of the Act are
that where the Commhsion in the exercise of discharge of powers
and functions under section 63A(2) ( c). issues directions to the
State or the Regional Transport Authorities, thosP,
authoritiel
ihall give effect and will be guided bv such directions. Orders or
directions whicn have the force of law by reason of statutory
power bind the authorities by reason of sustenance from the
statute. It is only when orders of directions are in the nature of
administrative orders and directions and they do not have the
force of statutory rules that it is not inappropriate to provide that
orders or directions shall be followed by the authorities.
This
Court applied this reasoning to the interpretation of section 43A
of the Aot in Naidu's case (supra) and held that the provisions
in section 43A that the Transpo1t Authorities "shall give effect to
all such orders and directions" indicated that the directions were
of a general character in respect of administrative matters.
This Court in Naidu's case (supra) held that til'~ Transport
Authorities in dealing with applications for permits and assessing
the respective or rival claims of the parties discharge qua!li·
judicial functions and their orders are quasi-judicial order!.
It is, therefore essential to fundamentals of fair-play in the administrative of law that the decision of these Transport Authorities in
the matter of grant of permits should not he clogged by directions
indicating the order of preference as happened in the present cue.
Section 55 of the Act which deals with applications for the
public carriers permit stares that other conditions being equal an
application for a public carrier's
permit from a Co-operative
Society, shall. as far as may, be given preference over the appli·
cntions for grant of permits. When the· Act provides preference
to Co-operative Societies, as far as possible. it is not appropriate
to 110ld that the Commission would have power to do the identical
things. In the present case, the Commission did not rest merely
with giving the first preference to Co-operative Societies.
The
Cotr.mission thereafter indicated the order of preference to Tra111port Co-operative Societies. Limited Companies, Registered firms
and lastly to others.
·
It is apparent that the order of preference indicated in the
garb of directions is an encroachment upon the judicial discretion
of the Transport Authorities in the matter of grant of pennits.
The High Court was correct in holding that the Commission
was not vested with any power to issue "directions which may
have the effect of fettering the Regional Tr&Illlport Authorit.iec,
or the State Transport Authorities concerned in perfonnance of
their quasi-judicial functions under the provisions of the Act"
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 1 S.C.R.
The power of the Inter-State Transport Commission under
section 63A(2)(c) of the Act to issue directions is referable only
to directions of executive and adminisl!rative nature. The Commission has no power to entrench upon the quasi-judicial functions of the Transport Authorities in ·the matter of grant of permits. The order of the High Court in quashing the direction is
upheld.
The appeals therefore fail. The respondents did not appear.
Therefore, there will be no order m to costs.
G. C.
Appeals dismissed.
A
B