Case: S. Srikantiah &amp; Ors Vs. The Regional Transport Authority,Anantapur &amp; Ors

Pradesh case cited above 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. 4. It may be mentioned that the constitutionality of the enhanced surcharge was upheld by this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service v. State of Andhra Pradesh. (1970) 2 SCR 52 = (AIR 1970 SC 1864 ), and therefore the only question that survives 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 thatonce a Notification is issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under S. 43 (1) (i) the conditions of the permit stand statutorily amended by virtue of Section 59 (3) (c). 5. The provisions of Sections 43, 44, 48 and 59 before their amendment in 1969, in so far as they are applicable to the matter under consideration are as follows : 43 (1) A State Government. . . . 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; 44 (3) A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 43 and subject to such direction and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions namely. a) xx xx xx b) xx xx xx c) xx xx xx d) xx xx xx (4) For the purpose 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 direction to any Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall in the discharge it of 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 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) xx xx xx (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 in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates ; The Government has pursuant to Section 43 issued the following notifications :"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) and in suppression of the Notification of the Government of A. P. in Public Works and Transport Department No. 1184 dated the 11th 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 Authority to fix the following maximum fares inclusive of the tax leviable under the Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation 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 1st November, 1956 were comprised in the State of Andhra..... " 6. In view of the directions given by the Government in the 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 compliance with those directions notified the operators. Once the provisions Sections 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 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. 7. 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 111, (AIR 1962 MP 108 ), Dixit, C J., 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 circumstances that case is not an authority for the proposition contended by the learned Advocate for the Appellant. 8.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 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 amended6. In view of the directions given by the Government in the 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 compliance with those directions notified the operators. Once the provisions Sections 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 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 permits7. 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 111, (AIR 1962 MP 108 ), Dixit, C J., 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 circumstances that case is not an authority for the proposition contended by the learned Advocate for the Appellant.