Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1385-1406 of 1998
PETITIONER:
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
RESPONDENT:
B.Noorulla Khan & Another etc.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/2004
BENCH:
R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
BHAN,J.
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others have filed these appeals
challenging the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court wherein it has struck down Rules 297-A(1)(c) and
297-A(6)(f) of The Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short
’the State Rules’) being ultra vires the provisions of The Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India. The Division Bench has also held that the rules
framed by the State Government under sections 95 and 96 of the Act and the
further conditions prescribed in section 74 of the Act are not applicable to
all-India tourist permit vehicles.
Original writ petitioners, respondents herein, are either the holders of
contract carriage permits granted under Section 74 of the Act or holders of
all-India tourist permits granted under Section 88 of the Act. The checking
officials seized and detained the vehicles being of the opinion that the
vehicles were being used as Stage Carriages. This action of the authorities
was challenged by the respondents by filing a set of writ petitions which
were disposed of by a Division Bench on 12th September, 1995. Vires of the
Rules were not challenged in these writ petitions. The writ petitions were
dismissed and it was held that the authorities had the power to detain
vehicles during transit as and when any violation of the rules was found at
the time of checking. The vehicles were again seized and detained and
thereafter the respondents filed the present set of writ petitions challenging
the constitutional validity of Rules 185 (e)(v), 297-A(1)(c), 297-A(2)(b) read
with 297-A(6)(b)(i) and 297-A(6)(f) of the State Rules being ultra vires the
provisions of the Constitution of India and the Act. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court has upheld the validity of Rules 185(e)(v), 297-
A(2)(b) and 297-A(6)(b)(i). The respondents have not carried appeals to
challenge the part of the judgment by which the High Court has upheld the
constitutional validity of the Rules, referred to above.
Section 2(4) of the Act defines the Stage Carriage. Section 2(7)
defines the Contract Carriage. Chapter V deals with the control of the
transport vehicles. Section 72 vests the Regional Transport Authority with
the power to grant State carriage permit [or refuse it] subject to the Rules
framed and attach any one or more of the conditions mentioned under
Section 72(2) of the Act. Section 74 enables the concerned authority to
grant contract carriage permit. Section 84 envisages the general conditions
attaching to all permits. Section 86 vests the authority with the power to
cancel or suspend the permits. Section 88 provides for validation of permits
used outside the region in which it is granted. Section 88(9) enables the
State Transport Authority to grant all-India tourist permits subject to the
Rules framed by the Central Government under clause 14 of Section 88 for
the whole of India or in such contiguous States, not less than 3 in number,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
including the State in which the permit is issued, as per choice indicated in
the application. The provisions of Sections 73, 74, 80 to 86 and Clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall as far as may be apply
in relation to such permits. Section 88(11) lays down the condition of every
permit granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88. Section 88(11)(iii)
empowers the Central Government to prescribe other conditions of permit.
Sub-section (14)(a) of Section 88 empowers the Central Government to
make rules to carry out the provisions of section 88. Section 95 of the Act
empowers the State Government to make rules as to Stage Carriages and
Contract Carriages and the conduct of passengers in such vehicles. Section
96 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of Chapter
V to carry into effect the provisions of the said Chapter.
The High Court held that reading of Section 2(7) indicated that the
’common purpose’ means that all the passengers travelling in the contract
carriage must have a common destination, but it could not be stretched
beyond that and to hold that purpose of going to a common destination must
also be the same. That it could not be held that the travelling party, as a
whole, must have one ’common purpose’; it was enough if they had a
common destination. If common purpose as defined by rules is read into the
definition of Section 2(7) then it would amount to amending or modifying
the said section which is within the purview of the legislature only. The
High Court has further held that the rules could not go beyond the Act and
therefore rule 297-A(1)(c) was ultra vires the provisions of the main Act as
well as the Constitution of India.
The High Court has also held that Rule 297-A (6)(f) contemplates that
where a public service vehicle has been, as a whole, engaged by a hiring
party, an agreement shall be drawn up in writing and executed by the agent
and the hiring party or its authorised representative containing the particulars
mentioned therein. The rule obligates the agent to enter into a written
agreement with the hiring party.
According to the High Court, under Section 2(7), a contract could be
either express or implied. The express contract could be taken to include a
written contract but implied contract itself denotes that it is not mandatory to
have a written contract. Rules could not go beyond the purview of the Act or
contrary to the Act. Since the definition of contract carriage contemplates
express as well as implied contract, an oral contract could also be entered
into. The provision made under Rule 297-A(6)(f) mandating the agent to
enter into written contract was ultra vires the Section 2(7) and therefore
liable to be struck down.
In so far as all-India tourist permits are concerned it has been held by
the High Court that under Section 88(14)(a), it is the Central Government
alone which can frame the Rules to carry out the provisions of Section 88
and the State Government has no authority to frame rules in regard to
all-India tourist permits in exercise of its powers under Sections 95 and 96 of
the Act. Since the rules framed by the State Government as made applicable
to all-India tourist permits run contrary to the Rules framed by the Central
Government the same were bad in law being repugnant.
Section 93 of the Act provides that an agent or canvasser who is
engaged in the sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles or in
otherwise soliciting customers for such vehicles is required to obtain a
licence from such authority and subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed by the State Government. Sub-section (2) enumerates the
conditions of such a licence as to the duration of the licence, fee payable,
deposit of security, provision as to the insurance of goods in the transit, and
the circumstances under which the licence may be suspended or revoked.
Clause (f) vests the State Government with the authority to lay "such other
conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government".
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Rule 297-A of the State Rules makes special provisions for licensing
of agents engaged in the sales of tickets or in otherwise soliciting customers
for public service vehicles. Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A (6) (f) which have
struck down by the High Court, read as follows:
"297-A. Special provisions regarding licensing of
agents engaged in the sales of tickets or in otherwise
soliciting customers for public service vehicles:-
(1) In this rule, unless the context otherwise requires.
Xxx xxx
(c) "Common purpose of journey" means the intention
shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public
service vehicles;
(i) to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social,
religious, political and the like, or
(ii) to go on a pilgrimage or tour to visit places of
tourist’s interest or both. But it shall not include
the intention or the act of such persons of merely
travelling from one common point to another."
Section 297-A (6) (f):
"An agent’s licence shall be subject to the
following conditions:
xxx xxx
(f) Where the public service vehicle has been,
as a whole, engaged by a hiring party an agreement
shall be drawn up in writing and executed by the
agent and the hiring party or its authorised
representative containing the following essential
particulars and stipulations, namely:
(i) Name, Father’s/Husband’s Name,
Age/Occupation and full postal address of
the members or/representative of the hiring
party who executes the agreement;
(ii) An Annexure containing the list of all
members of the hiring party giving their
particulars in the following form:
1. Serial number,
2. Name of the Member:
3. Father’s/Husband’s name:
4. Age:
5. Full Postal Address:
(iii) The nature of the common purpose of the
journey;
(iv) The period for which the vehicle is engaged
by the hiring party;
(v) The places to be visited by the hiring party;
(vi) The place or places to be specified where all
or some to be specified of the members of
the hiring party are to be picked up or let
down under the agreement;
(vii) Hire charges,
a) if payable in a lumpsum, the amount so
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
payable; or
b) if calculable at a rate, the rate so agreed
upon; and
c) in either case, the amount if any paid in
advance and the time for the payment of
the balance.
(viii) Additional charges, if any, payable in case
the journey is delayed or extended at the
instance of the hiring party."
"Contract Carriage" in Section 2(7) has been defined as:
"2(7): ’Contract Carriage’ means a motor vehicle which
carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and
is engaged under a contract, whether express or implied,
for the use of such vehicle, as a whole for the carriage of
passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a
person with a holder of permit in relation to such vehicle
or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed
or an agreed rate or sum, -
(a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to
any route or distance; or
(b) from one point to another;
and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set
down passengers not included in the contract anywhere
during the journey, and includes\027
(i) a maxicab; and
(ii) a motorcar notwithstanding the separate fares are
charged for its passengers."
Definition of contract carriage makes it clear that:
1. In order that a vehicle can be used to transport
passenger/passengers there must a prior contract express or
implied;
2. Contract shall have to be entered into by a person with the
holder of the permit or any person authorised by him;
3. Engagement under the contract must be for use of the vehicle as
a whole;
4. Contract must indicate the names of passengers to be carried in
the vehicle;
5. Vehicle is engaged on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum on a
time basis whether or not with reference to any route or
distance;
or
from one point to another;
6. Without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not
included in the contract anywhere during the journey.
In Rule 297-A(1)( c) ’common purpose of journey’ has been
explained to mean common intention shared by all the persons travelling by
the vehicle under the contract to attend a meeting, gathering or function
which may be social, religious, political and the like or to go on a pilgrimage
or place of tourist’s interest but it shall not include the intention or the act of
such persons of merely travelling from one common point to another.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
High Court has held that ’common purpose’ means that the
passengers travelling together need to have the common intention to travel to
a common destination but they need not share the common intention of
travelling for the same purpose as well. For instance, where a group of
persons engage a contract carriage vehicle for travelling from Delhi to Agra
they have the common intention of travelling to the same destination i.e.
from Delhi to Agra but their purpose of travel from Delhi to Agra could be
different. In other words, according to the High Court, the words "under a
contract" would include both single contract and more than one contract.
This point was examined by this Court in Brijendra Kumar
Chaudhari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 703. It was
held that it was not correct to read the words "under a contract" occurring in
Section 2(7) of the Act to mean as referring to both a single contract and
more than one contract. And in case such a construction is placed then the
distinction between the contract carriage and the stage carriage permits
would be lost and obliterated. It was held:
"10. The definition makes it clear that in order
that a vehicle could be used to transport passenger
or passengers there must be a prior contract
express or implied; that the contract must indicate
as to who are the passengers to be carried; that the
contract shall have been entered into by a person
with the holder of the permit or any person
authorised by him; and that the engagement under
"a contract" is for use of the vehicle as a whole. It
is not possible to read the words "under a contract"
in the context as referring to both a single contract
and more than one contract. If the construction
placed by the learned counsel is accepted there
would be no distinction between stage carriage and
contract carriage permits. Both these classes of
permits are intended to meet different
requirements. A stage carriage is intended to meet
the requirements of the general travelling public.
But the contract carriages are for those who want
to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a
group or party for their transport from place to
place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal.
This is also made clear in Section 88(8) of the Act
corresponding to Section 63(6) of the old Act
wherein it is provided:
"88(8) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), but subject to
any rules that may be made under this Act
by the Central Government, the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region or, as
the case may be, the State Transport
Authority, may, for the convenience of the
public, grant a special permit in relation to a
vehicle covered by a permit issued under
Section 72(including a reserve stage
carriage) or under Section 74 or under sub-
section (9) of this section for carrying a
passenger or passengers for hire or reward
under a contract, express or implied, for the
use of the vehicle as a whole without
stopping to pick up or set down along the
line of route passengers not included in the
contract, and in every case where such
special permit is granted, the Regional
Transport Authority shall assign to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
vehicle, for display thereon, a special
distinguishing mark in the form and manner
specified by the Central Government and
such special permit shall be valid in any
other region or State without the
countersignature of the Regional Transport
Authority of the other region or of the State
Transport Authority of the other State, as the
case may be."
That the contract shall be prior and the persons
who are to be carried shall be known prior to the
journey is also clear from the other limitation that
the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down
passengers not included in the contract anywhere
during the journey. As pointed out by this Court in
Roshan Lal Gauthan v. State of U.P (AIR 1965 SC
991).:
"The contract carriage is engaged for the
whole of the journey between two points for
carriage of a person or persons hiring it but
it has not the right to pick up other
passengers on route. The stage carriage, on
the other hand, runs between two points
irrespective of any prior contract and it is
boarded by passengers en route who pay the
fare for distance they propose to travel."
If as contended by the learned counsel contract carriage
permit holder can pick up individual passengers at the
starting point of the journey it is virtually a stage
carriage with corridor restriction. Some express buses
and stage carriages with corridor restriction pick up
passengers at the starting point of the journey and drop
them at the last terminus of the route without the right to
pick up or drop passengers on the notified route between
the two termini. Further the definition in the Act has
added the words "for the carriage of passengers
mentioned therein (contract)" which were not there
earlier. These words clearly show that there must be a
prior contract and the passengers shall be settled in
advance."
[Emphasis supplied]
Another case on the point is Nirmala JagdishChandra Kabra Vs.
Transport Commissioner & Ors., 1997 (9) SCC 227. In this case a writ
was filed by an agent who had hired on contract the vehicle from the
carriage permit holder seeking an appropriate writ or direction declaring and
holding that the authorities had no legal right or power to either seize or
detain his vehicles solely on the allegation of collection of individual fare
from the passengers at the starting point of journey without picking up or
dropping the passengers en route. Petitioner was collecting individual fares
per passenger from one destination to another but was not using the vehicle
as a tourist vehicle hired to one group party. Writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court. Dismissing the appeal it was held by this Court:
"4. It is contended by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the
petitioner has taken the vehicle on hire basis from
the owner of the vehicle who had the permit for
contract carriage of the passengers from one
destination to another. They are not collecting any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
individual fare en route by picking up or setting
down the passengers. They are picking up
passengers from one place and taking them for tour
to the other destination and, therefore, it is a
"contract carriage" within the meaning of Section
2(7) of the Act. It is not a stage carriage permit but
one of contract carriage and, therefore, the view
taken by the High Court is not correct in law. It is
true that if the holder of the vehicle obtains a
contract carriage, the owner may carry a passenger
or passengers for hire or reward on contract,
whether express or implied, for the use of such
vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers
mentioned therein and entered into by a person
with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle
or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a
fixed or an agreed rate or sum. In other words, the
very permit which grants the contract for carriage
of the passengers should contain the names of the
passengers to carry from one destination to another
destination without picking up or setting down en
route for hire or reward but when the holder of a
permit is another and permits them to carry the
passengers and makes the contract dehors those
mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the
permit as contract carriage and takes the
passengers from one destination to another, even
without picking up or setting down en route the
necessary consequence would be that the vehicle
has been or is being used as a stage carriage but
not a contract carriage. Under those circumstances,
obviously, the authority had rightly detained the
vehicle for the contravention of the conditions of
the permit. Therefore, the mandamus, as sought
for, was rightly refused by the high Court. The
learned counsel sought reliance on a judgment of
the Madras High Court in N. Krishnasami Chetty
v. Licensing Officer, Dy. Transport Commr. and
Secy RTA, AIR 1988 Mad. 274. The learned
Judges have not correctly appreciated the legal
position. Therefore, it is not correct in view of the
above law. It is accordingly overruled."
[Emphasis supplied]
The distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage
permit as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the two types
of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The contract
carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or
individually for a group or a party for their transport to a
destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the
carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one
contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one
destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot
hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with
passengers having different purposes. If such a construction is put then there
would be no distinction between stage carriage or contract carriage permits.
If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few
of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus
of the route it would virtually be a Stage Carriage with corridor restriction.
Stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general public
travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas
a contract carriage is meant for those who want to hire a public service
vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
another having the same purpose. High Court was not right in holding that
the travelling party as a whole need not have a common purpose for their
travel and it was sufficient if they had a common destination. The view
taken runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Brijendra Kumar
Chaudhari & Anr. and Nirmala JagdishChandra Kabra cases (supra)
and, therefore, bad in law. High Court was not right in declaring ultra vires
the Rules framed by the State Government providing that the party hiring the
contract carriage vehicle should, not only, have the intention of travelling to
the same destination but should also have the common purpose of travelling
as well. In Rule 297-A (1)(c) ’common purpose’ has been defined to mean
the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service
vehicles to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social, religious, political
and the like, or to go to a pligrimage or visit to place of tourist’s interest or
both. That it would not include the intention or the act of such persons
merely travelling from one common point to another. This Rule framed by
the State Government does not run counter to the provisions of Section 2(7)
of the Act either in its intent or in its expression. The rule is in consonance
with the intent of Section 2(7) of the Act. The same has been framed to
fulfill the object with which Section 2(7) has been enacted. Any other
interpretation would obliterate the distinction between a stage carriage
permit and a contract carriage permit.
High Court has struck down Rule 297-A(6)(f) as it provides for the
execution of a written contract between the hiring party and the agent while
hiring a public service vehicle. According to the High Court the contract
can be in writing as well as an implied contract. Under Section 2 (7) a
contract could be either express or implied and therefore it was not
mandatory to have a written contract only. It could be an oral contract as
well. The Rule providing to have a written contract mandatorily goes beyond
the purview of the Act and therefore bad in law. Contract could be implied
also as the definition of the contract carriage contemplates express as well as
an implied contract.
Rule 297-A(6)(f) provides for drawing up of an agreement in writing,
providing therein the list of all the members of the hiring party giving
particulars of their names, father’s/husband’s name, age, full address, the
period for which the vehicle is engaged, places to be visited etc. and "the
nature of the common purpose of the journey". This Court in Brijendra
Kumar Chaudhari & Anr. (supra) while interpreting Section 2 (7) of the
Act has held that the contract entered between the parties shall be prior and
persons who are to be carried shall also be known prior to the journey.
Similarly, in Nirmala JagdishChandra Kabra case (supra) it has been
held that the permit which grants the contract for carriage of the passengers
should contain the names of the passengers to be carried from one
destination to another without picking up or dropping the passengers en-
route. Contract may be express or implied as contemplated by Section 2 (7)
but the names of the passengers to be carried have to be settled prior to
undertaking the journey. Rule 297-A (6)(f) does not go beyond the purview
of the Act. Rather it carries out the purpose of the Act. Essentially it
provides for settling the names of the passengers undertaking the journey
under an agreement for hiring a public service vehicle. Passengers who are
to be carried are to be known prior to the journey as the definition of
contract carriage in Section 2 (7) includes the words "for the carriage of
passengers mentioned therein". These words clearly show that there must
be a prior contract and the passengers shall also be settled in advance. High
Court erred in striking down Rule 297-A (6)(f).
For the reasons stated above both the Rules 297-A(1)(c ) and 297-A
(6) (f) are held to be intra vires of the Act and the findings recorded by the
High Court to the contrary are set aside.
Coming to the last point wherein the High Court has held that the
rules framed by the Central Government under Section 88 (14) would alone
be applicable to all-India tourist permit and not the Rules framed by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
State Government, it was contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that all-India tourist permits were basically contract carriages.
’Tourist vehicle’ is defined under Section 2 (43) to mean a contract carriage.
The permits granted under Section 88 (9) enable these vehicles to be used in
more than one State but only for tourist purposes. Apart from this difference
in the actual area of operation there is no other difference between a contract
carriage and an all-India tourist vehicle. An all-India tourist vehicle has to
comply with the norms of a contract carriage. The vehicle in any case has to
be restricted for the journey as a whole from one end to the other without
picking up any passenger in between. The journey is one contract of a round
trip for the whole journey to and from with one common purpose. On
checking it was found that all-India tourist vehicles were indulging in illicit
operation as stage carriages and not as contract carriages.
We do not find any force in this submission. Section 88 provides that
except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region,
unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport
Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall
not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport
Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority
concerned. Sub-section (9) which provides for the grant of all-India tourist
permits, which reads as:
"9. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) but subject to any rules that may be
made by the Central Government under sub-
section (14), any State Transport Authority may,
for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant
permits in respect of tourist vehicles valid for the
whole of India, or in such contiguous States not
being less than three in number including the State
in which the permit is issued as may be specified
in such permit in accordance with the choice
indicated in the application and the provisions of
sections 73,74,80,81,82,83,84,85,86 [clause (d) of
sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89] shall,
as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits."
It is clear from the reading of this provision that the State Transport
Authority has been empowered to grant all-India tourist permit for the
purpose of promoting tourism, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1) of Section 88 and subject to the Rules to be made by the Central
Government under sub-section 14 of Section 88, for the whole of India or
such contiguous States not less than three in number including the State in
which the permit is issued. Further the provisions of sections 73, 74, 80, 81,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86 clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89
are applicable as far as may be in relation to such permits. Sub-section (11)
reads as under:
"(11) The following shall be conditions of every
permit granted under sub-section (9), namely: -
(i) every motor vehicle in respect of which such
permit is granted shall conform to such
description, requirement regarding the
seating capacity, standards of comforts,
amenities and other matters, as the Central
Government may specify in this behalf;
(ii) every such motor vehicle shall be driven by
a person having such qualifications and
satisfying such conditions as may be
specified by the Central Government; and
(iii) such other conditions as may be prescribed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
by the Central Government."
Sub-section (11) provides that every motor vehicle to which all-India tourist
permit has been granted shall conform to the description, requirement of
seating capacity, standards of comforts, amenities and other matters, as
specified by the Central Government in this behalf. Further, such vehicles
have to be driven by persons having such qualifications and satisfying such
conditions as may be specified by the Central Government. Other such
conditions have also to be prescribed by the Central Government.
Sub-section 14 reads as under:
"(14) (a) The Central Government may make rules
for carrying out the provisions of this section.
(b) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may
provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(i) the authorisation fee payable of the issue of
a permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and
(12);
(ii) the fixation of the laden weight of the motor
vehicle;
(iii) the distinguishing particulars or marks to be
carried or exhibited in or on the motor
vehicle;
(iv) the colour or colours in which the motor
vehicle is to be painted;
(v) such other matters as the appropriate
authority shall consider in granting a
national permit.
Explanation.- In this section,
Xxx xxx"
This sub-section empowers the Central Government to frame Rules for
carrying out the provisions of this Section as well as for providing for all or
any of the matters mentioned in sub-clause (b) of this Section. From the
conjoint reading of sub-sections (9), (11) and (14), referred to above, it is
abundantly clear that it is the Central Government alone which has been
authorised to frame the Rules as well as to prescribe the conditions for the
purposes of all-India tourist vehicles. The power to make rules under
Sections 95 and 96 would not include the power to frame rules applicable to
all-India tourist permit which is exclusively vested in the Central
Government. The power to frame rules and prescribe conditions for the
all-India tourist permit is exclusively vested in the Central Government and
the High Court was right in holding that the State Government would have
no jurisdiction to either frame the Rules or prescribe conditions for the
all-India tourist permits. Such permits would be exclusively governed by the
Rules framed by the Central Government or the conditions prescribed by the
Central Government. The judgment of the High Court in so far as it has held
that it is the Rules framed by the Central Government only which would be
applicable to all-India tourist permits and not the Rules framed by the State
Government is upheld.
For the reasons stated above, the appeals are accepted partly to the
extent indicated in the foregoing paragraphs. No order as to costs.