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

2. A few facts may be stated to appreciate the matters in issue in this appeal. The Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act (Act XVI of 1952) became applicable to the State of Andhra and subsequently to the Andhra Pradesh when the respective reorganisation of States took place in 1953 and 1956. In 1959 the Andhra Pradesh 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 inspect of stage carriages as well as in respect of goods vehicles. It is not necessary to notice what those rates are except to say that under sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Madras Motor vehicles (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 May1959 by G. O. Ms. No. 1077 the State Transport Authority was directed by the Government to fix maximum fares inclusive of the leviable tax under the Act for the stage carriages in the State of Andhra Pradesh which immediately before the 1st November, 1956 were comprised in the State of Andhra. The Andhra Pradesh Amendment having come 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 unconstitutional. 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, 61. 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 condition of their permit they were precluded from collecting the fares at a rate higher than 7- 1/2 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 at 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 Government will not collect.

Court's reasoning:
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.