Appeal No 366 of 1976 From the Judgment and Order dated 2121974 of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Writ Appeal No 17173
KN Bhatta and M Rangaswamy for the Appellant Mrs Shyamla Pappu and Girish Chandra for Respondent No 3 BRGK Achar for Respondents Nos 1 and 2
666 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 431 of the hereinafter referred to as the Act  fix the charges to be imposed upon operators of stage carriages for carrying mails as conditions of their permits
Section 48 of the Act lays down the power of the Region al 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 general
Section 48 sub section 1 subjecting the power to grant stage carriage permits to provisions of section 47 of the
Act includes what may be  correctly characterised as the quasi judicial power either to grant or refuse to grant a permit after consideration of matters stated in Section 47 of the Act
After that we come to the power to attach conditions laid down in Sec tion 483 and we find 493 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 shall be carried on any of the vehi cles authorised by the permit subject to such conditions including conditions as to the time in which mails are to be carried and the charges 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 483 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 exer cising 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 Authori ty 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 Re gional Transport Authorities all over the State under Section 44 1  of the Act to impose 667 duty of carrying the postal goods upon rates fixed by the Government as a condition annexed under Section 483 xv to permits
The relevant part of Section 43 1 of the Act enacts 43 1 A State Government having regard to a the advantage s offered to the public trade and industry by the above development of motor transport and b the desirability of co ordinating road and rail transport and c the desirability of preventing the deterio ration of the road system and d the desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among motor vehicles may from time to time by 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 Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the power of the Government to issue directions relating to freights does not include imposition of charges for carry ing postal goods as conditions permits which the Regional Transport Authority grants in exercise of its quasi judicial powers
The attack on the validity of the Government direc tion is thus two fold firstly that it falls outside the scope of Section 431 of the Act as charges for carrying mail are not freight on goods carried and secondly that no directions could be given to a quasi judicial au thority as to how it should perform its functions
So far as the first argument is concerned we do not find much substance in it
The term charge is a broad one
As used here it is not a technical term and has not been defined by the Act
It has therefore its ordinary dic tionary meaning
It means any amount which may be demanded as a price for the rendering of some service or as price of some goods
The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Act uses the term freight to
indicate the charge made on carriage of goods whereas the term fare is used for the charge made for carrying passengers itself rests on the assumption that the term charge is a wide one
It includes both freights and fares
It is true that the term fare is used in relation to charges made for carriage of passengers and the term freight is used for charges made for the carriage of goods
Nevertheless both are charges
It may be that stage carriages are meant for the carriage of passengers
But as is a matter of common knowledge they also carry the luggage of passengers
In other words they also carry some goods incidentally
The mail bags in which the postal goods are sent are only a type of goods which are not so bulky as to require trucks 11 l234SCI76 668 Or special 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 mail 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 Authori ty to attach the condition that postal goods should be carried in stage carriages at rates fixed by the Govern ment
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 the 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 483 speaks of the power to attach conditions after the decision to grant the permit it really deals with what lies past the quasi judi cial 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 431of the Act to fix freights for carriage of postal goods in various types of carriages mentioned there including stage carriages
We think that such charges are merely a species of freight on postal goods about which the State Government can issue appropriate directions to the State Transport Authority
The Regional Transport Authority has only to
annex the condition auto matically in areas where such a condition may be required to be annexed to the permits granted
A reference to Section 59 sub
section 3c would show that acceptance of the fixed rates of fares and freights after their notification under Section 43 becomes a condi tion 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 section Srikantiah  Ors
vs The Regional Transport Authority Anantapur  Ors1 In other words the Regional Transport Authority has 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
SCR 816
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 493xv over ride the general provisions of Section 43Id i on the principle of interpretation generalia specialibus non derogant   and that in view of the special provision of Section 483xv 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 complementary
Section 483xv is really meant to carry out the direction which can legally be given under section 431di of the Act
Therefore although we allow the miscellaneous applica tion 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 MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The State Government issued a notification us 431  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 STA then directed the Regional Transport Authority us 441 of the Act to impose the duty of carrying the postal goods upon rates fixed by the Government as a condition annexed us 483XV to permits
The appellant contended that the power of the Government us 431 to issue directions relating to freights does not include imposition of charges for carrying postal goods as conditions of permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority
in exercise of its quasi judicial powers
Dis missing the appeal the Court HELD The State Government has the data and the legal power under Section 431 of the Act to fix freights for carriage of postal goods in various types of carriages mentioned there including stage carriages
Such charges are merely a species of freight on postal goods about which the State Government can issue appropriate directions
668 E 2 Section 483 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 mechanically 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
this is a part of the purely executive duties of the Regional
Trans port Authority
668 D E 669 A section Srikantiah  Ors
vs The Regional Transport Author ity Anantapur  Ors followed
3 There is no question of any special provision over riding the general
The provisions are complementary
Section 483XV is really meant to carry out the direc tions which can legally be given under section 43 1 di of the Act
669 B C