# S. SRIKANTIAH & ORS v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ANANTAPUR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 816
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-05-07
- **Bench:** S. M. Siicri, G. K. Mitter, C. A. Vaidialingam, P. Jagan· Mohan Reddy, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-srikantiah-ors-v-the-regional-transport-authority-anantapur-ors-5438
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Good•) Act 16
of 1952 and The Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers Goods) A.ndhra
Pradesh (Amendment) Act 1959-Notification issued under s. 43 of A.ct
authorising enhancement of fares by operators-No consequential ·amend~
ment made in permits held by operators-Once NotificatiOn is issued under
s. 43 the conditions of permits stand statutorily amended by' virtue of s. 59
(3) (c).
The Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act
1952 became applicable to the State of Andhra and subsequenUy to Andhra
Pradesh when the respective reorganisation of States took place in 1953
and 1956. In 1959 the Andhra Pradesh legislature enacted the Motor Vehi·
cles (Thxation of Passengers and Goods) Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act
with a view to augmenting the revenue of the State. By this Act the rates
in respect of state carriages as well as good9 vehicles were increased. The
Act came into force with effect from 8th May 1959. On 7th May 1959
by G.O. Ms. No. 1077 the State Transport Authority was directed by
the Government to fix maximum fares inclusive of the leviable ta'X. under
the Act for the state carriages in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 1959
amendment was struck down by the High Court The legislature there·
after passed Act 34 of 1961 by validating the levy under the Act which
bad been struck down by the High Court and also for imposition of a
surcharge. The operators again questioned the Amendment Act of 1961 on
the ground that they had not collected the fares on the enhanced rates fixed by the Transport Authority because by the conditions of their permit
they were precluded from collecting the fares at a rate higher than 7 t pies
or 4 NP per passenger per mile.
In view of the fact that the Regional
Transport Authorities had not taken action to modify that conditk,n suitably they could not collect .this amount and therefore were not liable to
pay surcharge at enhan,ced rates. The High Court held that the directions
issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1077 of 7th May 1959 pursuant to which the Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated
12th May 1959 called upon the Regional Transport Officers to notify the
operators and which the said officers had notified authorising them to
collect the enhanced fares was sufficient authorisation for them to collect
the enhanced fares as if the fare tables had been amended. The operators
appealed to this Court. The constitutionality of the surcharge having been
upheld by this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service etc. etc. v. StaJe of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr., (1970r 2 S.C.R. 52, the only question that survived for
consideration was whether there was any impediment preventina: the operators from collectina the enharced fares without the conditions of the per·
mit being amended.
HELD : In view of the direction• given by the Government in it•
notification under s. 43 the Regional Transport Authority called upon the
Regional Transport Ofticers to notify the operators to collect the enhonced
s. SRIKANTIA!I v,.l\BGI01'\AL TRANSPORT (Jaganmohan Reddy. J.)
fares and accordingly the officers concerned in compliance with these dircc~
tion• notified the operators. Once the provisions of section 43(1)(i) and
44(4) are complied with section 59(3) (c) comes into play and it has the
effect of incorporating the maximum fares as notified includina the tax
Jeviable, as a condition of the permit. This being the lcsal position there
was no justification for the contention that the collection by the operaton
of the enham:ed fares without the table of fares being amended would en·
tail the cancellation of the permits. [820G-H]
Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of MadhyQ Pra·
desh, A.l.R. (Vol. 49) 1962 M.P. 108, distin&uished.
.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1332
of 1968.
817
A
B
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 3,
c
1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 201
of 1963.
K. Mangacha

## Text

816
A
B
c
D
E
F
·G
H
S. SRIKANTIAH & ORS.
v.
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ANANTAPUR & ORS.
May 7, 1971
[S. M. SIICRI, C. J., G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGAN·
MOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Good•) Act 16
of 1952 and The Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers Goods) A.ndhra
Pradesh (Amendment) Act 1959-Notification issued under s. 43 of A.ct
authorising enhancement of fares by operators-No consequential ·amend~
ment made in permits held by operators-Once NotificatiOn is issued under
s. 43 the conditions of permits stand statutorily amended by' virtue of s. 59
(3) (c).
The Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act
1952 became applicable to the State of Andhra and subsequenUy to Andhra
Pradesh when the respective reorganisation of States took place in 1953
and 1956. In 1959 the Andhra Pradesh legislature enacted the Motor Vehi·
cles (Thxation of Passengers and Goods) Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act
with a view to augmenting the revenue of the State. By this Act the rates
in respect of state carriages as well as good9 vehicles were increased. The
Act came into force with effect from 8th May 1959. On 7th May 1959
by G.O. Ms. No. 1077 the State Transport Authority was directed by
the Government to fix maximum fares inclusive of the leviable ta'X. under
the Act for the state carriages in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 1959
amendment was struck down by the High Court The legislature there·
after passed Act 34 of 1961 by validating the levy under the Act which
bad been struck down by the High Court and also for imposition of a
surcharge. The operators again questioned the Amendment Act of 1961 on
the ground that they had not collected the fares on the enhanced rates fixed by the Transport Authority because by the conditions of their permit
they were precluded from collecting the fares at a rate higher than 7 t pies
or 4 NP per passenger per mile.
In view of the fact that the Regional
Transport Authorities had not taken action to modify that conditk,n suitably they could not collect .this amount and therefore were not liable to
pay surcharge at enhan,ced rates. The High Court held that the directions
issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1077 of 7th May 1959 pursuant to which the Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated
12th May 1959 called upon the Regional Transport Officers to notify the
operators and which the said officers had notified authorising them to
collect the enhanced fares was sufficient authorisation for them to collect
the enhanced fares as if the fare tables had been amended. The operators
appealed to this Court. The constitutionality of the surcharge having been
upheld by this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service etc. etc. v. StaJe of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr., (1970r 2 S.C.R. 52, the only question that survived for
consideration was whether there was any impediment preventina: the operators from collectina the enharced fares without the conditions of the per·
mit being amended.
HELD : In view of the direction• given by the Government in it•
notification under s. 43 the Regional Transport Authority called upon the
Regional Transport Ofticers to notify the operators to collect the enhonced
s. SRIKANTIA!I v,.l\BGI01'\AL TRANSPORT (Jaganmohan Reddy. J.)
fares and accordingly the officers concerned in compliance with these dircc~
tion• notified the operators. Once the provisions of section 43(1)(i) and
44(4) are complied with section 59(3) (c) comes into play and it has the
effect of incorporating the maximum fares as notified includina the tax
Jeviable, as a condition of the permit. This being the lcsal position there
was no justification for the contention that the collection by the operaton
of the enham:ed fares without the table of fares being amended would en·
tail the cancellation of the permits. [820G-H]
Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of MadhyQ Pra·
desh, A.l.R. (Vol. 49) 1962 M.P. 108, distin&uished.
.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1332
of 1968.
817
A
B
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 3,
c
1964 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 201
of 1963.
K. Mangachari, K. R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Cltdudhury,
for the appellants.
·
· · ·
·
P. Ram Reddy and G. S. Rama Rao, for the respondent.
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Japnmoban Reddy, J.-This Appeal is 'by a Certificate against the Judgment of the Andhra Pradlilll··High Court
given in a batch of Writ. Petitions .of. which ttif '.Writ Petition
giving rise to this Appeal ..vas one. · The High Cot!rt while dismissing the Writ Petitions gave certain directions to which we
will refer later.
A few facts may be stated to appreciate the
matters in
issue in this appeal. The Madras Motor Vehicles cr.axation of
Passengers and Goods) Act (Act XVI of 1952) became applicable
to the State of Andhra and. subsequently to the Alldhra Pradesh
when the respective reorganisation of. States took place in 1953
and 1956. In 1959 the Andhra Prapesh legislature enacted the
Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and
Goods)
Andhra
Pradesh (Amendment) Act with a view to augment the revenue
of the State. By this amendment Act the rates had been increased
in respect of State carriages as well as in respect of goods
·vehicles. It is not necessary to notice what those rates are exeept
to say that under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Madras
Motor Vehicle (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act 1959, the Govt.
of Andhra Pradesh
appointed the 8th May 1959 as the date on which the State Act
came into force.
On 7th May 1959 by G.0. Ms. No. 1077 the
State Transport Authority was directed by the Govt. . to fix maximum fares inclusive of the Ieviable tax under the Act for the
52-1 s. a. India/71
IL
F
G
H
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
p97 l] SUPP. S.C.R.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
state carriages in the State of Andhra Pradesh whicc immediately
before the !st November 1956 were comprised in the State of
Andhra. The Andhra Pradesh Amendment having wme into
force it was challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions in the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh and that Court had struck down the
Act as being un-constitutional. The legislature thereafter passed
Act 34 of 1961 by validating the levy under the Act which was
struck down by the High Court and also for
imposition of
surcharge from the different dates from the date on which
it
came into force namely from the 3rd November 1961. The
operators again questioned the Amendment Act of 1961 on the
ground that they had not collected the fares on the enhanced
rates fixed by the Transport Authority because by the conditions
of their permit they were precluded from collecting the fares at
a rate higher than 7~· pies or 4 NP per passenger per mile.
In
view of the fact that the Regional Transport Authorities had
not taken. action to modify that condition suitably they could
not collect this amount and therefore were not liable to pay
surcharge a! the enhanced rates. This contention was negatived
by the High Court which while rejecting the Writ Petitions on
that ground none-the-less directed that the Respondents will not
be entitled to payment or collect the enhanced surcharge from the
operators for the month of May 1959 which the Counsel for the
Government had stated on instruction that the Govt. will not
collect.
The point which is urged before us, as was urged in the
High Court is whether the enhanced surcharge became operative
and payable immediately on the coming into force of the 1961
Act or was it necessary to amend the conditions of the permit
dealing with the fares leviable by
the operators before
the
Government could collect the enhanced surcharge from
them.
The learned Advocate for the Appellents argues
relying on
Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. Private Ltd. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh(') that unless 'the table of fares is altered. in accordance
with the procedure laid down fares which includes taxes cannot
be lawfully collected and therefore they are not law bound to pay
. the enhanced surcharge. This very contention was raised before
the High Court, which disagreeing with the Madhya
Pradesh
case cited above held that the directions issued by the Govt. in
G.O. Ms. No. 1077 of 7th May 1959 persuant to which the
Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated 12th May
1959 called upon the Regional Transport Officers to notify the
operators and which the said officers had notified authorising
them to collect the enhanced fares was sufficient authorisation
for them to collect the enhanced fares as if the fare tables had
been amended.
·
--- ----- --. -
.
(!) A.LR. (Vol. 49) 1962-M. P. 108.
I
•
s. SRIKANTIAH '·REGIONAL TRANSPORT (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.)
819
It may be mentioned that the constitutionality of the enhanced
surcharge was upheld by this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service
etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr .. Cl
and therefore
the only question that servives is whether there is an impediment
to the operators to collect fares without the conditions of the
permit being amended.
There is of course
the other basic
question whether the payment of the enhanced tax is dependent
on the operators collecting the enhanced fares. In any case it
is unnecessary to consider this .question in the view we
have
taken that the contention urged by the Appellant is unsustainable.
The relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly support
the view taken by the High Court that once a Notification is
issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under Section
43(l)(i) the conditions of the permit stand statntorily amended
by virtue of Section 59(3)(c).
The provisions of Section 43, 44, 48 and 59 before their
amendment in 1969, in so far as they are applicable to the matter
under consideration arc as follows.··-
A
•
c
43(1) A State Government ...... may from time to time by
D
Notification in the official Gazette issue directions to
the State Transport Authority-
(i) regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage
carriages, contract carriages and public carriers;
44(3) A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any
directions issued under Section 43 and subject to such
directions and save as otherwise provided by or under
this Act shall exercise and discharge throughout the
State the following powers and functions namely :
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers
and functions specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport Authority may, subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed, issue directions to any Regional Transport
Authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall
in the discharge of its functions under this Act give
effect to and be guided by such directions.
48(3) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides
to
grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for
t) Il910] 2 s. c. R. 52
E
F
G
H
820
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPOR'Il!
[1971] SUPP. s.c.a.
a service of stage carriage of a specified description or
for one or more particular stage carriages, and may,
subject to any rules that may be made under this Act,
attach to the permit any one or more of the following
conditions namely: -
(i) to (xi)
•
i
•
(xii) that fares shall be charged in accordance with
the
approved fare table;
59(3) The following shall be conditions of every permit: -
(c) that any prohibition or restriction imposed and any
maximum or minimum fares or freights fixed by notification made under Section 43 are observed m connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates :
The Government has persuant to Section 43 issued the following
notification :
"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i)
of sub-section (!) of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 (Central Act, IV of 1939) and in supersession
of the Notification of the Government of A.P. in Public
Works and Transport Department No. 1184 dated the
I Ith August 1956, published at page 2026 of part I of
the A. P. Gazette dated the 6th September 1956, the
Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs the State
Transport to fix the following maximum fares inclusive
of the tax leviable under the Madras Motor Vehicles
(fa.xation of Passengers and Goods) Act, 1952 (Madras
Act XVI of 1952) for stage carriages in the territories
of the State of Andhra Pradesh which immediately before
the !st November, 1956 were comprised in the State of
Andhra ............... "
In view of the directions given by the Government in tile
above notification the Regional Transport Authority called upon
the Regional Transport Officers to notify the operators to collect
,the enhanced fares and accordingly the officers concerned in
compliance with those directions notified· the operators.
Once
the provisions of Section 43(1)(i) and 44(4) are complied with
Section 59(3)(c) comes into play and it has the effect of incorporating the maximum fares as rrotified including the tax leviable,
as a condition of the permit.
This being the legal position we
do not think there is any justification for the contention
that
the collection by the operators of the enhanced fares without the
table of fares being amended Would entail the cancellation of
the permits.
I
s. SRIKANTIAH v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT lJaganmohan Reddy,J.)
The decision of the Madhya Pradesh case is clearly distinguishable as it does not appear that any notification was issued
under Section 43 as was done in this case nor do we find that the
provisions of Section 59(3)(c) have been referred to or considered.
At page ll l, Dixit C.1., noted the submissions of the Additional
Government pleader that instructions would be issued to all
Regional Transport Authorities for a revision of fare
tables
under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to enable the
operators to recover the tax amount from the passengers as extra
fare, which he observed was a step in the right direction. These
observations show that there was no notification under Section
43 nor any instructions given to the Regional Transport Officers
by the Regional Transport Authority. In the circumstance that
case is not an authority for the proposition ~ntended by the
learned Advocate for the Appellant.
In our view there is no
validity in the stand taken by the operators and consequently this
appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
G. C.
821
A
B
c