# SREE GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. LTD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 665
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-09-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1976
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, P. N. Shinghal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sree-gajanana-motor-transport-co-ltd-v-the-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-6980
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 43 ( 1 )-State Govemment can direct imposition of fixed rates 011 stage-carriage operators for carrying mails as condition
-0/ permit-Ss. 48 (3) and 59 (3) ( c), such directions do not inlerfae with quasi
judicial functions of Regional Transport Authority-Special provisions of s. 48
(3 )(XV) do not override general provisions of s. 43( !) (d) ( 1).
A
B
The State Government issued a notification u/s 43(1) Motor Vehi~les Act,
C
1939, directing the State Transport Authority to impose the charge of certain
uniform rates of freight upon the operators of stage-carriages other than State
Transport undertakings, carrying mails or postal goods.
The S.T.A.
then
directed the Region.al Transport Authority, u/s 44 ( 1) of the Act, to impose
the duty of carrying the postal goods upon rates fixed by the Government as a
condition annexed u/s 48(3)(XV) to permits.
The appellant contended that the power of the Government u/s 43 (1) to
issue directions relating to "freights", does not include _imposition of Gharges
D
for carrying postal goods as conditions of permits granted by the Regional
Transport Authority in exercise of its quasi judicial powers.
Dismissing the
a·ppeal the Court,
HELD : The State Government has the data and the legal power under
Section 43 (1) of the Act to fix freights for carriage of postal goods in various
types of carriages mentioned there, including stage carriges. Such charges are
merely ~ species of freight on postal goods about which the State Government
can issue appropriate directions. (668 El
E
(2) Section 48(3) deals with what lies past the quasi-judicial stage of decision to grant the permit. At that stage, the decision to grant the permit is already there and only conditions have to be attached to the permit. The Regional
Transport Authority has, at this stage to act mainly mechankally after considering matters on which it has, acting quasi-judicially, formed an opinion and taken
a decision.
There is no interference with the quasi-judicial functions as the
annexation of a condition like, thi~ is, a part of the purely executive duties of the
Regional Tramport Authority. (668 D-E, 669 A]
S. Srikantia/J & Ors. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur &
Ors [1971] Suppl. SCR 816 followed.
(3) There is no question of any special provision over-riding the general.
The provisions are complementary. Section 48(3) (XV) is really meant to carrry
out the directions which caln legally be given under section 43(1) (d) (i) of the
F
Act. (669 B-CJ
G

## Text

665
SREE GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. LTD.
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
September 22, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 43 ( 1 )-State Govemment can direct imposition of fixed rates 011 stage-carriage operators for carrying mails as condition
-0/ permit-Ss. 48 (3) and 59 (3) ( c), such directions do not inlerfae with quasi
judicial functions of Regional Transport Authority-Special provisions of s. 48
(3 )(XV) do not override general provisions of s. 43( !) (d) ( 1).
A
B
The State Government issued a notification u/s 43(1) Motor Vehi~les Act,
C
1939, directing the State Transport Authority to impose the charge of certain
uniform rates of freight upon the operators of stage-carriages other than State
Transport undertakings, carrying mails or postal goods.
The S.T.A.
then
directed the Region.al Transport Authority, u/s 44 ( 1) of the Act, to impose
the duty of carrying the postal goods upon rates fixed by the Government as a
condition annexed u/s 48(3)(XV) to permits.
The appellant contended that the power of the Government u/s 43 (1) to
issue directions relating to "freights", does not include _imposition of Gharges
D
for carrying postal goods as conditions of permits granted by the Regional
Transport Authority in exercise of its quasi judicial powers.
Dismissing the
a·ppeal the Court,
HELD : The State Government has the data and the legal power under
Section 43 (1) of the Act to fix freights for carriage of postal goods in various
types of carriages mentioned there, including stage carriges. Such charges are
merely ~ species of freight on postal goods about which the State Government
can issue appropriate directions. (668 El
E
(2) Section 48(3) deals with what lies past the quasi-judicial stage of decision to grant the permit. At that stage, the decision to grant the permit is already there and only conditions have to be attached to the permit. The Regional
Transport Authority has, at this stage to act mainly mechankally after considering matters on which it has, acting quasi-judicially, formed an opinion and taken
a decision.
There is no interference with the quasi-judicial functions as the
annexation of a condition like, thi~ is, a part of the purely executive duties of the
Regional Tramport Authority. (668 D-E, 669 A]
S. Srikantia/J & Ors. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur &
Ors [1971] Suppl. SCR 816 followed.
(3) There is no question of any special provision over-riding the general.
The provisions are complementary. Section 48(3) (XV) is really meant to carrry
out the directions which caln legally be given under section 43(1) (d) (i) of the
F
Act. (669 B-CJ
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1976
(From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1974 of the Karnataka
High Court in Civil Writ Appeal No. 171/73).
K. N. Bhatta and M. Rangaswamy for the Appellant
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu and Girish Chandra for Respondent No. 3
B. R. G. K. Achar for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J.-This appeal by special leave raises the question whether
the State Government could, by a general direction given ·under Section 43(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') fix the charges to be imposed upol\ operators of stage
carriages for carrying mails as conditions of their permits.
Section 48 of the Act lays down the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permits with conditions annexed thereto.
The first stage of exercise of this power is preceded by.
the quasi-judicial enquiry, under Section 47 of the Act,. into
the
matters affecting the interests of public in generaI.
Section 48, sub ..
s. (1), subjecting the power to grant stage carriage permits to provisions of section 4 7 of the. Act, includes what may be correctly characterised as the "quasi-judicial" power ·ell:her to grant or refuse to grant
a permit after consideration of matters stated in Section 4 7 of the:
Act.
After that, we come to the power to attach conditions laid.
down in Section 48(3), and we find :
"49(3) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides
to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a
service of stage carriages 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 : . . .
"
Out of a number of kinds of conditions which may be imposed, the·
xvth, given below, is relevant :
"(xv) that mails s!iall be carried on any of the vehicles
authorised by the permit. subject to such conditions (including conditions as to the time in which mail~ are to be carried
and the charge§ which may be levied) as may be specified".
Now, it is contended on behalf of the appellants, that the power
to attach conditions under Section 48 (3) is also quasi-judicial with
which the State Government neither has nor ought to have any concern.
The conditions of permits are prescribed by statute.
It
is
for the authority, exercising "the power quasi-judicially to grant or
not to grant permits, to decide what conditions to attach or not to
attach to each permit. It is not, it is submitted, for the State Government to dictate any conditions to be attached.
Hence, the challenge to the Government notification dated 30th May, 1968, which
directed the State Transport Authority, to impose the charge of certain, uniform rates of freight upon operators carrying mails or postal
goods in stage carriages owned by operators other than State Transport Undertakings throughout the State. The State Transport Authority had, in its turn, issued a direction to the Regional
Transport
Authorities all over the State under Section 44 ( 1) of the Act to impose
•
:
•
;
•
•
P. C. PATEL AND ORS.
SMT. T. H. PATHAK AND ORS.
September 22, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.]
Civil
service-Seniority-Irregular
recruitment-Regularisation-Appoint_
ments through Public Service Commission-Recruitment through centudised
recruitment scheme.
~he. respo~dents Nos .. 1 to · io who we~~ Writ Petition.;-rs. in the High· CoUrt.
were appointed as clerks between June, 1963 to January, 1967 on temporary
basis and were promoted to higher posts thereaf_t~r. They_ cont~nded that at th_c
relevant time there was no rule or order requ1nng that -appolntments to their
posts ·shall be made through Public Service Commission. The Gujarat Government issued Gujarat Non-Secretariat Clerks, Clerk -Typists and Typists (Direct
Recruitment Procedure) RulCs, 1970. Thereafter, by resolution dated 15-4-1971.
it. Was stated that seniority of the candida·tes \.Y'ho were· to be selected for the
posts· of Clerks, Clerk typists and typists shall be determined as if their allotment or appointment was frOm 17-4-1970 irrespective of the_ question \\hether
they were in service or not, and that their names shall be arranged in a common
seniority list in order of merit in accordance with the principles )aid do...,·n in the
Rules.
The Writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition {n-the Gujarat 1-ligh Court feeling
aggrieved by the said 1970 Rules _and the 1971 resolution.
· The \vril- Petitioners. ~Ontended that the Gove~nment shOuld be direct.;:d to·
treat their entire service as regular and that their seniority should be fixed on the .
basis of the dates on \vhich they had joined their respective_ posts._
·
--Th~ ·Staie_. Gove~~ent in. i~ ·counter affidavit po:nted out th.it the Wr-it
Petitioners ¥'ere not recruited _through proper channel; that even though the
centralised recruitment scheme was in existence and was· arplirable \Vith effect
from'Jahuary, 1963,-the"Wtit Petitioners did not come through the cmploymentexchanges that their appointments were by way of a stop-gap arrangement.-
The
State, however, admitted ·in its affidavit that -the Writ Petitiopers \\'ere not under
the purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission at the time of their
appointment.
The State contended that the Writ Petitioners were irregularly
appointed and that 1970 Rules were framed on humanitarian considerations to
regularise their appointments and that, their seniority could not be counted from
the dates of their appointment and could be counted only from 17th April, 1970.
The Jligli Court"·_·c~~~·-to·th~ conclusion that the Centralised Recruitment
Scheme was not applicable ,when the Writ Petitioners '"·ere appointed and that
the posts were also not within the purview of the Gujarat Public Service Commission until March, 1969. The High Court therefore, held that the appointments of the petitioners were regular and were not required to be regularised
under the 1970 Rules. It also held that the State Government had no power .to·
lissue the circular under rule 30 of the Rules for allotment and fixation of .a.
seniority and that the instructions contained in the resolution Of 1971 \\·ere not
applicable to the Writ Petitioners. The High Court allo\\'·ed _the Writ Petition,
struck down the seniority list, and directed the State Government and the Director of Civil Supplies to treat the services of the petitioners as regular from ihe
dates when they .were appointed initially and not to apply the instruction., con- -
tained in the resolution of 1971 to compute their seniority.
· The appellants, who cla_imed to have been appointed regularly from the beginning and who contend that the appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular
filed appeal by Special Leave; The -appel~ants contended -:
·
l. That the initial aPrOintnierit of the Wril Petition~rs· ~as irregular; b~ii;g ·
· . · in violation of the. centralise_d ~ecruitment scheme, since the office
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1977] 1 S.C.R.
or specia~ vans. It is possible to carry them in stage carriages together with the luggage of the passengers.
In any case, this is
a
condition which is probably imposed only in those areas where mai!
vans of the State are not found to be necessary or economical to run.
In the villages in the interior of some rural areas, there may not be so
much mail to carry as to justify sending a mail van.
Therefore,
power is given to the Regional Transport Authority to attach
the
condition that postal goods should be carried in stage carriages
at
~ates fixed by the Government.
The real grievance of the operators
is not that they have to carry postal goods as a condition of their
permits but that the rates fixed are too low.
The proper remedy for
such a grievance is, as the High Court rightly pointed out, to apply
to t):le Government for revision of rates fixed.
Coming to the second submission, we may observe that, although,
there is ample authority for the proposition that the grant of stage
carriage permits is a quasi-judicial function, with which the State
_ Government cannot interfere by giving directions which may impede
the due performance of such functions, yet, when
Section
48(3)
speaks of the power to attach conditions after the decision to grant
the permit, it really deals with what lies past the quasi judicial stage
of decision to grant the permit.
At that stage, the decision to grant
the permit is already there and only conditions have to be attached
to the permit, such as the necessity to carry postal goods on certain
routes at rates fixed by the Government.
On the face of it, these
rates cannot be properly determined by
the
Regional
Transport
Authority.
They have to be uniform throughout the State.
A decision on what they should be must rest on considerations of policy and
on facts which are not quite relevant to the grant of stage carriage
permits. In any case, it is the State Government which has the data
and the legal power, under Section 43 (1) of the Act, to fix freights
for carriage of postal goods in various types of carriages, mentioned
there, including stage carriages.
We think that snch charges
are
merely a species of freight on postal goods about which the
State
Gov.ornment can issue appropriate directions to the State Transport
Authority. The Regio11:al Transport Authority has only to aJlllex
the condition automatically in areas where such a condition may be
required to be annexed to the permits granted.
A reference to Section 59, 'sub. s. (3) (c) would show that acceptance of the fixed rates of fares and freights, after their notification
under Section 43, becomes a condition which has to be automatically
attached to a permit.
The Regional Transport Authority has
no
option on this matter. This is what this Court held in S. Srikantiah &
Ors. v.
The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur & Ors.(') Tn
other words, the Regional Transport Authori!Y 1J~s to act
mainly
mechanically after considering .matters on which It has to form an
opinion and take a decision quasi-judicially.
We think that there
is no scope for argument that there is any interference here with the
quasi-judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authority.
The
(1) [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 816.
\
I
f
GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSP. CO. V. KARNATAKA (Beg, J.)
669
annexation of a condition like this is a part of the purely executive
Activities of the Regional Transport Authority.
By Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4023 of 1976, learned Counsel for the appellant sought to add two further grounds of appeal. These
were : that, the special provisions of Section 49(3) (xv) over-ride the
general provisions of Section 43(1) (d) (i) on the principle of iilterpretation 'generalia specialibus non derogant' : and, that, in view of
the special provision of Section 48 ( 3) (xv) , the impugned notification
of the State Government was ultra vires.
The second ground is what
follows if the first is good. But as we have already explained above,
the first ground itself is not sound.
There is no question of
any
special provision over-riding the general.
The provisions are complematary. Section 48(3) (xv) is really meant to carry out the direction
which can legally be given under section 43(1) (d) (i) of the Act.
Therefore, although we allow the miscellaneous application and have
permitted the grounds to be argued, we reject them as untenable.
For the reasons given above, we agree with the views contained
in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court against which this
appeal has been filed.
We hold that the impugned direction and
notification by the Government was not invalid and that the Regional
Transport Authority had not acted illegally in attaching the required
condition to the permit.
Consequently, we dismiss this appeal with
costs.
M.R.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D