Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 28 (GAU)

Gauhati Transport Association, Gauhati and another v. State of Assam and others

1977-10-11

BAHARUL ISLAM, D.PATHAK, K.LAHIRI, M.SADANANDASWAMY, N.IBOTOMBI SINGH

body1977
Judgement M. SADANANDASWAMY, C.J. :- This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The first petitioner is the Gauhati Transport Association, an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860), the members of which are holders of Stage Carriage permits for plying buses within the municipal limits of Gauhati city. The second petitioner is the Secretary of the said Association and is also a holder of one such Stage Carriage permit. They have prayed for quashing three notifications. The first is the notification dated 4th June, 1977 issued by the Government keeping in abeyance its earlier notification revising the fare in respect of stage carriages plying within the Muncipal limits of Gauhati. The second notification is dated 5th June, 1977 issued by the Government reintroducing the fares in respect of such Stage carriages plying within the Municipal limits which obtained prior to 1-5-1977. The third notification is dated 1st June, 1977 issued by the Government fixing concessional fares to students travelling in the city bases at the rate prevalent before 1st May, 1977. 2. On 19th April, 1974, the Governor of Assam constituted a Committee, with the Minister for Transport as its Chairman, to examine the grievances of the operators of the Stage Carriage Vehicles as recorded in their representation dated 13-3-74 submitted to the State Government and to suggest remedial measures for the same. The Committee was asked to submit its report in April, 1974. 3. At its meeting held on 24-4-74, the said Committee considered the representation made on behalf of the operators of passenger transport vehicles as well as the views forwarded by the Deputy Secretary, Transport and made the following recommendation to the Governments:- "The Committee considers that in view of the rise in cost of operation of the stage and contract carriage vehicles and inadequate outturn of the capital investment there should be an upward revision of the fare structure. Accordingly the Committee recommends that the Transport Department will work out the schedule of fares on the basis of 30% rise over the existing fare of the ordinary stage and contract carriage vehicles." 4. The Government published a notification dated 24th March, 1975 under Cl. Accordingly the Committee recommends that the Transport Department will work out the schedule of fares on the basis of 30% rise over the existing fare of the ordinary stage and contract carriage vehicles." 4. The Government published a notification dated 24th March, 1975 under Cl. (i) of sub-sec (1) of Sec. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 26th March, 1975, the relevant part of which reads as fallows: The 24th March, 1975 NOTIFICATION No. TMV.324/73/189- Whereas for the purposes of development of motor transport within the State of Assam it is necessary to revise the fares of Stage Carriages and contract Carriages; And whereas the Draft directions issued under Notification No. TMV 324/73/ 146 dated 17th June 1974 to the State of the public in general, has been published in the official gazette and representatives of interest affected by such revision have been given an opportunity of being heard ; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (i) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Assam is pleased to issue to the State Transport Authority, Assam, the following directions regarding fixation of fares in respect of stage carriages and contract carriages in the State and publish the same for information of the public in general. DIRECTION The maximum rates of fare for Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages in the State of Assam shall be fixed in the manner set forth in the Schedule below: SCHEDULE 1. A. (1) Ordinary Stage Carriage. (Including ordinary services of the Assam, Meghalaya, State Road Transport Corporation within Assam). Route Maximum rate per passenger per Kilometre. Lower Class Upper Class. For all routes Rs. 0.0455 Rs. 0.061. in the State ………………… ………………… ……………….. ………………… (4) The rates will come into force with effect from the 1st April, 1975." 5. Thereafter, a notification dated 16th June, 1975 under S. 43, cl. (i), sub-sec. (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 25th June, 1975. The notification stated that due to the steep rise in the cost of operation in respect of stage carriage vehicles operating in Assam, the revision of the maximum fare has became necessary and called for objections from persons likely to be affected. (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 25th June, 1975. The notification stated that due to the steep rise in the cost of operation in respect of stage carriage vehicles operating in Assam, the revision of the maximum fare has became necessary and called for objections from persons likely to be affected. A draft of proposed directions regarding the maximum rates of fare was also incorporated. The notification reads as follows: The 16th June, 1975 NOTIFICATION No. TMV.217/75/11- Whereas the steep rise in the cost of operation in respect of Stage Carriage Vehicles operating in Assam has necessitated revision of the maximum fare as fixed under the notification No. TMV.436/61, dated the 16th September 1965 as amended by the notifications Nos. TMV. 387/85/23 dated the 5th June, 1968, TMV. 236/66/78 dated the 25th September, 1969, TMV. 145/71/12 dated the 10th August, 1971 and TMV. 324/73/139 dated the 24th March, 1975. And whereas for the purpose of development of motor transport within the State of Assam, it is necessary to revise the fares of stage carriage vehicles : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (i) of sub-section (1) of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Assam proposes to issue to the State Transport Authority, Assam, the following direction regarding fixation of fares in respect of stage carriage in the State and publishes the same for information of the public in general. Notice is hereby given that the persons likely to be affected by the proposed direction may within one month from the date of the publication of this notification in the Assam Gazette file any objection to the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Transport and Tourism Department, P. O. Assam Sachivalaya, Block F, Dispur, Gauhati 781006. DRAFT OF PROPOSED DIRECTION The maximum rates of fare for stage carriages operating on routes within municipal limits and on certain hill routes in the State shall be fixed in the manner set forth in the schedule below : SCHEDULE 1A (i) Ordinary Stage Carriage. Routes Maximum rate per passenger per Kilometre Lower Class Upper Class. 1. For routes within Municipal limits. A uniform rate of Re. 0.065 with Re. 0.13 for first lift at every stage upto 2 (two) Kilometres. 2. Routes Maximum rate per passenger per Kilometre Lower Class Upper Class. 1. For routes within Municipal limits. A uniform rate of Re. 0.065 with Re. 0.13 for first lift at every stage upto 2 (two) Kilometres. 2. For Phulertal-Jirighat, Salganga- Kumbha-Amaranagar routes in Cacher District. Re. 0.066 Re. 0.080 Note- (1) The stage carriage plying on different routes in respect of which separate rates of fare have been fixed in the notification No. TMV. 436/61, dated the 16th September, 1965 as amended by Notification Nos. TMV. 387/65/23 dated the 5th June, 1968 and TMV. 324/73/189 dated the 24th March, 1975 but for which no provisions have been made in this notification shall continue to charge the fare, for the time being, in force. P. N. Rau Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department" 6. The representations made by various persons were considered by the Government and thereafter the following notification dated 24th September, 1975 was published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary of the same date. It contains a direction issued to the State Transport Authority, Assam regarding fixation of the maximum rates of fare for stage carriages operating on routes within municipal limits under S. 43 Cl. (i), sub-sec. (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Marked as Annexure C to the petition). The relevant part of the notification reads as follows:- NOTIFICATION The 24th September, 1975. No. TMV. 217/75- Whereas the steep rise in the cost of operation in respect of Stage Carriage Vehicles operating in Assam has necessitated revision of the maximum fare as fixed under Notification No. TMV. 436/61, dated the 15th September, 1965 as amended by the Notification Nos. TMV. 387/65/23 dated the 5th June 1968, TMV. 236/65/78 dated the 25th September, 1969; TMV. 145/71/12 dated the 10th August, 1971 and TMV. 324/73/189 dated the 24th March, 1975. And whereas the draft directions issued under Notification No. TMV. 217/65/11 dated 16th June, 1975 to the State Transport Authority, Assam was published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 25th June, 1975 for the information of the public in general and the representatives of the interest affected by such revision have been given an opportunity of being heard. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (i), sub-sec. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. (i), sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Assam is pleased to issue to the State Transport Authority, Assam, the following directions regarding fixation of fares in respect of Stage Carriages in the State and to publish the same for information of the public in general. DIRECTION : The maximum rates of fares for Stage Carriages operating on routes within municipal limits and on certain hill routes in the State shall be fixed in the manner set forth in the Schedule below : SCHEDULE: I. A. (1) Ordinary Stage Carriage. Routes Maximum rate per passenger per Kilometre Lower Class Upper Class 1. For routes within A uniform rate of Rs. 0.065 Municipal limits. with Rs. 0.13 for first lift at every stage upto 2 (two) Kilometers. ………….. ……………………………… …………… ……………………………… Note:- (1) ............ (2) These rates will come into force with effect from the 1st October, 1975." 7. On 31-7-1975, the second petitioner submitted to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati a fare table for the city buses prepared in conformity with the Government notification dated 16-6-75 rounding off the fares to the nearest five paise according to the Government notification dated 23-2-73. In column (2) to the fare table were set out the fares thus rounded off including the taxes. In the accompanying letter he requested the Regional Transport Authority to communicate the approval to the same. 8. On 26th September, 1975, the second petitioner submitted a fare list to the Government in conformity with the notification dated 23-9-75 stating that the city bus fares had been rounded off to the nearest five paise for the convenience of all concerned and prayed for its approval so that the revised rates of fares can be given effect to without further loss of time. 9. On 27-9-75, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati passed the following order on the representation of the petitioner No. 2 submitting the fare table to him on 31-7-75: "Approved col. No. 2 subject to the appl. of R.T.A." 10. Thereafter, the bus operators appear to have announced their decision to charge fares at the increased rate with effect from 1st October, 1975. 11. No. 2 subject to the appl. of R.T.A." 10. Thereafter, the bus operators appear to have announced their decision to charge fares at the increased rate with effect from 1st October, 1975. 11. On 30th September, the President of the petitioner-Association received the following communication from the Secretary to the Government, Transport and Tourism Department : "Sir, I am directed to say that from the reports appearing in the newspapers it is understood that the Gauhati Transport Association is going to charge fares from the users of the city bus services at an increased rate with effect from the 1st October, 1975. But I would like to state for your information that under the law, the Gauhati Transport Association can legally charge fare at the enhanced rate only after it received formal direction to do so from the concerned Regional Transport Authority. As you are aware, this has not yet been done. I am, therefore, to say that the Gauhati Transport Association should not raise the fare from 1-10-75 as it is not legally competent to do so till all the formalities prescribed by the law are completed." 12. In reply to that letter, the petitioner No. 2 wrote a letter on 7-11-75 to the Secretary, Transport Department stating that since the rounded off revised fares have been duly approved by the R.T.A., Gauhati, the bus operators propose to collect revised fares with effect from 15th of November, 1975. A copy of the working sheet of the revised fares was also enclosed. 13. The Secretary, Transport Department, sent a telegram to the second petitioner on 11-11-75 in answer to the above letter, which reads as follows: "TVM. 2177555(.) Ref. Your Let. No. GTA/D-32/72-75 dated 7th instant (.) You are advised not repeat not to increase city bus fares as proposed without clearance from government(.) As such action on your part would be illegal repeat illegal(.) If therefore you take action to increase city bus fares unilaterally as indicated by you on 15th instant you will be doing so at your own risk repeat at your own risk." 14. According to the case of the petitioners, no further clearance was necessary to enforce the enhanced fares either from the State Government or from the Regional Transport Authority. According to the case of the petitioners, no further clearance was necessary to enforce the enhanced fares either from the State Government or from the Regional Transport Authority. But the petitioners were constrained to submit to the aforesaid directive issued by the Government even though it was illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the conditions then prevailing under the Emergency. It is therefore their further contention that after the lifting of the Emergency, petitioner No.1 and its members moved the Government to enforce the revised rates according to the notification dated 24th September, 1975 in respect of city buses of Gauhati and that ultimately the Government acceded to their request and issued the necessary direction to Respondent No. 2, the State Transport Authority, Assam, vide communication dated 6th April, 1977, marked as Annexure F to the petition, which roads as follows: "Sub:- Revision of City Bus Fare. Sir, I am directed to refer to this Departments notification No. TMV 217/75 dated the 24th Sept., 1975 as a copy endorsed to you under this Departments Memo No.TMV. 217/75A dated the 24th September, 1975 revising the fare of the stage carriage vehicles operating on the routes within the municipal limits (viz. city buses) and on certain hill routes in Cachar District and to request you kindly to take steps as required under the law to give effect to the said notification with effect from 1st May, 1977. I am further to request you kindly to direct the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati to ask the South Kamrup Bus Association to stop plying of its buses as city in Gauhati city with effect from the 15th April, 1977. Yours faithfully, SD/- under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam. Transport and Tourism Deptts. Memo. No. TMV. 217/75/113-A, Dated Dispur, the 6th April, 1977. Copy to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati, with reference to this Deptts Memo No TMV. 217/ 75-A dated M-9-75. He is directed to five effect to this Deptts Notification No. TMV. 217/75 dated the 24th September, 1975 revising the city bus fare with effect from the 1st May, 1977. He is also directed to ask the South Kamrup Bus Association to stop plying of its buses as city buses at Gauhati with effect from the 15th April, 1977. (2) The Commissioner of Transport, Assam, Lachitnagar, Gauhati. He is requested to ensure that the Govt. Notification No. TMV. He is also directed to ask the South Kamrup Bus Association to stop plying of its buses as city buses at Gauhati with effect from the 15th April, 1977. (2) The Commissioner of Transport, Assam, Lachitnagar, Gauhati. He is requested to ensure that the Govt. Notification No. TMV. 217/75 dated 24-9-75 revising the city bus fare from the 1st May, 1977. (3) The Secretary, Gauhati Transport Association, M. C. Road, Gauhati-3 for information. (4) The General Manager, Assam State Transport Corporation, Paltan Bazar, Gauhati." 15. Under the above notification, the State Transport Authority was directed to give effect to the notification dated 24th September, 1975 revising the fares of the stage carriage vehicles within the Municipal limits of Gauhati with effect from 1st May, 1977. The Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati was also directed to give effect to the said notification with effect from 1st May, 1977. 16. Pursuant to the instruction of the Government, the State Transport Authority in turn directed all the Regional Transport Authorities on 11th April, 1977 to give effect to the revision of fares with effect from 1st May, 1977. The said communication, marked as Annexure G to the petition, reads as follows: "To: The Secretary R.T.A. (All). Sub:- Revision of City Bus Fare. Ref:- Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport and Tourism Department letter No. TMV. 217/75/113 dated 6-4-77. In forwarding herewith the Govt. of Assam, Transport and Tourism Departments Notification No. TMV. 217/75 dated 24-9-75, I am to request you to give effect of the revision of the Stage Carriage fare on the routes within the Municipal limits (viz. city buses) with effect from 1st May, 1977." 17. On 22-4-1977, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati sent the following communication, marked as Annexure N to the Writ Petition, which reads as follows: "Sub:- Approval of city bus fare sanctioned by the Govt. vide letter No. TMV. 217/75 dated 23-9-75. Ref.:- Your letter No. GTA/F-2/71-77/77-765, dated 21-4-77. Dear Sir, With reference to the above I am to inform you that in conformity with the above Govt. notification the fare sanctioned by the Govt. for city buses is approved hereby. Fare shall have to be realised inclusive of proportional rate of A.P.G.T. The matter of fare chart will be taken up in the next Regional Transport Authority meeting." 18. notification the fare sanctioned by the Govt. for city buses is approved hereby. Fare shall have to be realised inclusive of proportional rate of A.P.G.T. The matter of fare chart will be taken up in the next Regional Transport Authority meeting." 18. There appears to have been agitations on the part of the student community to the increased fares. The Government therefore decided that the maximum rate of fare for the bona fide students travelling in the city buses should be reduced to the rate prevalent before the 1st May, 1977. Accordingly, the following order of the Government dated 1st June, 1977, marked as Annexure H to the Writ Petition, was sent to the petitioner No. 2: "Sub:- Proposal for grant of concessional fare to the students for travel in the city buses. Sir, I am directed to say that the question of providing concessional fare to the Bona fide students in the State for travelling in the city buses has been under the consideration of the State Government for some time past After a careful consideration of the question, the State Government have decided that the maximum rate of fare for the bona fide students not engaged in other calling or profession and studying in any recognised educational institution in the State and travelling in the city buses to and from their institution should be reduced to 5 (five) paise per passenger per kilometre subject to the minimum fare of 10 (ten) paise for the first lift at every stage up to 2 (two) kilometres i.e the rate prevalent before the 1st May, 1977. The said concessional fare to the students will be admissible to them on production of certificate from the Head of the institution in which they are studying to the effect that they are the bona fide students of the said institutions. The revision will take effect immediately." 19. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 2 received the following communication from the Government on 4th June, 1977, marked as Annexure I to the writ petition, intimating the decision of the Government to keep in abeyance with immediate effect until further orders the Government notification dated 24th September. 1976 and the Departments letter dated 6th April, 1977, whereby the city bus fares had been increased : To The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam, Lachitnagar, Gauhati-781007. Sub:- Enhancement of City Bus fares This Department Notification No. TMV. 1976 and the Departments letter dated 6th April, 1977, whereby the city bus fares had been increased : To The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam, Lachitnagar, Gauhati-781007. Sub:- Enhancement of City Bus fares This Department Notification No. TMV. 217/75 dated 24-9-75 a copy endorsed to you under this Deptt. Memo. No. TMV. 217/75A dated the 24th September, 1975 and this Department letters No. TMV. 217/113 dated 6-4-77. Sir, I am directed to say that the enhancement of the fare in respect of the Stage Carriages plying on the routes within the Municipal limits (i.e on the city routes) as effected in this Deptt Notification No. TMV. 217/75 dated 24-9-75, a copy endorsed to you under this Deptt. Memo. No. TMV, 217/75A dated 24-9-75 with effect from the 1st May, 1977 vide this Deptt. letter No. TMV. 217/75/113 dated the 6th April, 1977 has caused widespread resentment among the travelling public particularly among the student community at Gauhati. 2. The State Government are, therefore having the question of enhancement of the fare in respect of the said stage carriages examined de novo and have decided that the Govt. Notification revising the city bus fare as referred to above should be kept in abeyance with immediate effect, until further orders 3. I am therefore to request that S.T.A, may kindly consider issuing instruction to the R.T.A, Gauhati to implement the Govt. decision referred to in para 2 by suitable modification of the relevant condition of the permit in respect of city buses in the State. A very urgent action is requested. Yours faithfully SD/- Under Secretary, Memo. No. TMV. 217/75/190-A, Dated Dispur the 4-6-77. Copy to: 1. The Secretary R.T.A., Kamrup, Gauhati. He is requested to inform G.T.A. and all the members of the said Association individually not to charge revised fare in respect of the city bus service at Gauhati with immediate effect until further order from the Govt. 2. The G. M. A.S.T.C., Gauhati for implementing the Govt: decision as referred to in para (2) above. 3. The D. C Gauhati. He is requested to ensure that the abovementioned decision of the Govt. in regard to the city bus fare is implemented by all concerned with immediate effect He is also requested to convey Govt. decision to the Students Sangram Parishad immediately. 4. The S. P. Kamrup, Gauhati for information. 5. 3. The D. C Gauhati. He is requested to ensure that the abovementioned decision of the Govt. in regard to the city bus fare is implemented by all concerned with immediate effect He is also requested to convey Govt. decision to the Students Sangram Parishad immediately. 4. The S. P. Kamrup, Gauhati for information. 5. The General Secretary, G.T.A., M. C Road Gauhati, he is requested to implement the Govt. decision not to charge revised fare in respect of the city bus services at Gauhati with immediate effect until further instructions from the Govt. 6. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home Department" 20. On 5th June, 1977, the petitioner No. 2 received the following communication from the Government, marked as Annexure J to the writ petition, requesting him to implement the Govt decision to charge fares obtaining prior to 1-5-1977 in respect of the city buses at Gauhati with immediate effect until further instructions from the Government: "To The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam, Lachitnagar, Gauhati-781007. Sub:- Enhancement of City Bus Fare. Ref:- This Deptts letter No TMV. 217/75/190, dated 4-6-77. Sir, In continuation of this Deptt.s letter cited above I am directed to further clarify that the fares in respect of the Stage Carriages plying in the routes within the municipal limits (i.e. on city routes) obtaining prior to 1-5-77 is to be reintroduced with immediate effect. The question of the entire fare structure is being examined by a Committee which is being set up by Government for this purpose. I am, therefore, to request you that State Transport Authority, Assam may kindly instruct to the Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati to implement the Govt. decision referred to above by suitable modification of the relevant conditions of the permits in respect of the city bus in the Gauhati city. An immediate action is requested. Yours faithfully, SD/- Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport and Tourism Deptt. Memo. No. TMV. 217/191A dated Dispur the June, 1977. Copy to:- 1. The Secretary, Regional Transport. 2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kamrup, Gauhati. He is requested to inform the Gauhati Transport Association and all the members of the said Association individually to charge the fare prevailing before 1-5-77 in respect of the city bus services at Gauhati with immediate effect. 2. The General Manager, Assam State Transport Corporation, Paltanbazar, Gauhati for implementing the Govt. decision as referred to. 3. He is requested to inform the Gauhati Transport Association and all the members of the said Association individually to charge the fare prevailing before 1-5-77 in respect of the city bus services at Gauhati with immediate effect. 2. The General Manager, Assam State Transport Corporation, Paltanbazar, Gauhati for implementing the Govt. decision as referred to. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Gauhati. He is requested to ensure that the above-mentioned decision of the Govt. in regard to city bus fare is implemented by all concerned with immediate effect. He is also requested to convey Govt. decision to the Students Sangram Parishad, Gauhati immediately. 4. The Superintendent of Police. Kamrup, Gauhati for information. 5. The General Secretary, Gauhati Transport Association, M. C. Road, Gauhati. He is requested to implement the Govt. decision to charge obtaining prior to 1-5-77, the fares in respect of the city bus services at Gauhati with immediate effect until further instructions from the Govt. 6. The Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home Department." 21. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 issued a statement to the press communicating the decision of the Gauhati Transport Association to stop plying of the city buses after 5-6-77 alleging that the Government had, without any prior intimation to the city bus operators illegally and arbitrarily announced reduction of city bus fares. The second petitioner also informed the Government of its decision of 5-6-77 not to run the vehicles until rearrangement is made. 22. Thereafter, on 8-6-77, the Regional Transport Authority addressed a communication to the second petitioner asking the Association to show cause why it has ceased to operate the buses when the permits have been issued in the interest of the travelling public also and requested the Association also to submit all the permits to get them endorsed the revised fare as per Government letter No. TMV. 217/75/190 dated 4-6-77. The present writ petition was presented on 7-6-77. 23. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as soon as the Government Notification under S. 43, Cl. (i) sub-sec. (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was published in the Assam Gazette, that is to say, from 25-6-75, the revised rate as fixed thereunder became statutorily incorporated as a condition of the permit in all the stage carriage permits issued in the State of Assam in view of S. 59, Cl. (i) sub-sec. (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was published in the Assam Gazette, that is to say, from 25-6-75, the revised rate as fixed thereunder became statutorily incorporated as a condition of the permit in all the stage carriage permits issued in the State of Assam in view of S. 59, Cl. (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the Government had no jurisdiction to keep the rates in abeyance by an executive order. It is their further contention that the rates notified under S. 43, Cl. (i), sub-sec. (1) can only be modified either by following the procedure under sub-sec. (3) of S. 43 of the Act or under the provisions of S. 21 of the General Clauses Act in the like manner and subject to the like conditions as contained in S. 43 of the Act. It is also their contention that any amendments of the rates of fare can only be prospective and not retrospective in operation. 24. The petitioners claim that in view of S. 59, CL (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the members of the first petitioner-Association acquired the right to collect fares at the revised rate immediately on publication of the notification under Section 43, Cl. (i), sub-sec. (1) of the Act, that is to say, with effect from the 1st October, 1975 and that the respondents by directing them to collect fares at the pre-revision rates have violated the petitioners fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution to carry on occupation, trade and business. It is their further contention that the order of suspension of the revised rates affected only the city bus operators in the city of Gauhati, that the buses plying in other towns in Assam are collecting fares under the revised rates with effect from 1st October, 1975 and that the impugned order is thus discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is alleged that in the case of stage carriages (which include city buses) the fare chargeable must conform to the approved fare table as provided under S. 48, cl. (3), sub-sec, (xii) and that the approved fare table referred to in the said provision is the fare table approved by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. (3), sub-sec, (xii) and that the approved fare table referred to in the said provision is the fare table approved by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. It is their further contention that unless the fare table prepared by the petitioner-Association receives the approval of the Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati, the fares to be realised by the petitioner-Association from the users of its buses will not be the legal fares and that the fare table prepared by the petitioner-Association for the said purpose has not yet been approved as required under the law. It is further stated that the conditional or tentative approval of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati to realisation of the enhanced fare by the city buses of the petitioner-association according to the Government notification dated 24-9-75 read with the order dated 6-4-77 has since been withdrawn according to his letter dated 8-6-77 addressed to the second petitioner. 26. Another contention urged is that under S. 43, Cl. (i), sub-sec. (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Government fixed the maximum fare chargeable by the Stage Carriages plying within the municipal limits of the city by its notification dated 24-9-75, but that the fares to be charged by the bus owners from the users of their buses must conform to the fare table approved by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. Since the formalities prescribed by law under Section 48, Cl. (3), sub-sec. (xii) of the Motor Vehicles Act for realisation of the fare fixed by the Government under S. 43 of the Act were not completed, it was not legally permissible for the petitioner-Association to charge the revised fare. The petitioners contention that there is violation of Art. 14 or Art. 19 has been denied. It is stated further in that affidavit that the enhancement of the city bus fare as effected by the Government notification dated 24-9-75 with effect from the 1st May, 1977 had caused widespread resentment among the users of the city buses at Gauhati as expressed through press and memoranda and representations submitted to them. The State Government after considering the said memoranda and representations and having heard the interests affected through a series of discussions with the representatives of the petitioner-Association and the users of the city buses of the Association in the matter was satisfied that the said notification dated 24-9-75 ought to be varied. The State Government after considering the said memoranda and representations and having heard the interests affected through a series of discussions with the representatives of the petitioner-Association and the users of the city buses of the Association in the matter was satisfied that the said notification dated 24-9-75 ought to be varied. The State Government therefore issued order on 4-6-77 and 5-6-77 keeping the said notification dated 24-9-75 in abeyance and reducing with immediate effect the fare chargeable by the city buses at Gauhati to the level of the fare prevalent prior to the enforcement of the notification dated 24-9-75, that is to the fares prevalent prior to 1-5-1977. It is their further contention that the action of the Government is covered by S. 43, Cl. (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that any procedural irregularity that might have been committed by the Government before modifying the rate of fare as fixed earlier by its notification dated 24-9-75 is not substantial so as to render the action of the Government in modifying the fare-rate invalid. 27. In the reply affidavit of the petitioners it is contended that in reply to the request of the petitioner-Association, the Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati by its letter dated 22nd April, 1977 addressed to the petitioner-Association gave its approval to the fare sanctioned by the Government though it added that the matter of fare chart would be taken up in the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. It is their contention that the Regional Transport Authoritys letter dated 8-6-77 purporting, to withdraw its conditional or tentative approval as referred to in the counter-affidavit is misconceived and without any legal effect. 28. The Secretary of the Gauhati Regional Transport Authority also filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In that affidavit it is stated that the second petitioner submitted an application on 21st April, 1977 praying for approval of the fare chart as required under S. 46 (3) (xii) and (xiii) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that as the Regional Transport Authority is the competent authority to approve the fare list, he informed the second petitioner that the approval of the fare chart will be taken up at the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. He has further stated that the Regional Transport Authority. He has further stated that the Regional Transport Authority. Kamrup, Gauhati has not delegated its power of approval to any officer or authority and as such the petitioners acted illegally in collecting fares at the revised rates with effect from 1-5-77 inasmuch as the Regional Transport Authority has not at any time approved the fare list time table as prayed for by the petitioner-Association. He also stated that there was no meeting of the Regional Transport Authority from 24th May, 1977 till the date of filing of the writ petition by the petitioners and as such the fare list/time table could not be approved. 29. Along with the second supplementary affidavit filed by the second petitioner in reply to the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati, Annexure T, the permit in respect of a particular State Cartiage issued to a member of the petitioner No. 1-Association under Rule 70 (a) (i) of the Assam Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 has been produced. It shows that in column 9, against the entry Rate of fares, if fixed under S. 43 of the Act, the entry made is As fixed by Government from time to time. This is in support of the petitioners contention that there is no necessity for the Regional Transport Authority to approve the fare chart before the bus operators become entitled to charge fares at the revised and enhanced rates and that they could not do so immediately on the notification of the Government issuing the direction to the State Transport Authority to enhance the fares as indicated in the Government notification. 30. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the interveners who claimed to be regular passengers travelling in the buses within the Gauhati city. His contention in that the Writ Petition is not maintainable since there is no resolution passed by the members of the petitioner No. 1-Association authorising the second petitioner to present the writ petition. 31. In Madhab Chandra Das v. Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati Region (AIR 1954 Assam 212), the petitioner had presented the petition on his behalf and also in his representative capacity as Secretary of an Association of permit holders. It was held that he had no authority and no right to invoke the Jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 on behalf of others. It was held that he had no authority and no right to invoke the Jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 on behalf of others. But the petition was considered as maintainable on behalf of the petitioner alone. In Government Press Employees Association, Bangalore v, Government of Mysore (AIR 1962 Mys 25), their Lordships relied on the decision of the Mysore High Court in Bangalore District Hotel Owners Association v. District Magistrate. Bangalore (AIR 1951 Mys 14) wherein it has been held that an application for issue of writ must be presented by an aggrieved party and that an Association, although registered under the Societies Registration Act, has no locus standi to make an application under Art. 226 for the personal and individual grievances of some of the members and not of the Association itself. 32. An affidavit on behalf of the petitioners has been filed by the second petitioner on 23-8-77 annexing a copy of the proceedings of the Adjourned Executive Committee Meeting of petitioner No. 1-Association held on 5th June, 1977 authorising the Secretary and the President of the Association jointly to seek redress in the High Court. It is also submitted by Shri B. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the second petitioner is himself a permit-holder and that in any case the writ petition is maintainable on his behalf. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to express any opinion as to the maintainability of a writ petition presented by the first petitioner-Association. Since the writ petition is maintainable on behalf of petitioner No. 2, we will treat the writ petition as one presented by petitioner No. 2. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled. 33. Mr. Baruah has relied on the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Satyavari Sidhantalankar v. Arya Semaj, Bombay (AIR 1946 Bom 516) wherein it is held that once a society is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, the Society enjoys the status of a legal entity apart from its members constituting the same and is capable of suing or being sued, To the same effect is the decision in Nabadwip Bhajan Ashram v. Commissioner of Nabadwip Municipality (AIR 1958 Cal 361). But it is not necessary to go into the question further since we have come to the conclusion that the petition is maintainable as far as the second petitioner is concerned. 34. But it is not necessary to go into the question further since we have come to the conclusion that the petition is maintainable as far as the second petitioner is concerned. 34. In State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly ( AIR 1958 SC 1018 ) it has been held that S. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 embodies a rule of construction and that the question whether or not it applies to the provisions of a particular statute would, depend on the subject-matter, context and the effect of the relevant provisions of the said statute. It is further held that it would be necessary to examine carefully the scheme of the Act, its object and all its relevant and material provisions before deciding whether by the application of the rule of construction enunciated by S. 21, it can be said that the power conferred under that section is vested in the authority by necessary implication. 35. Legal rights if any, conferred on the second petitioner cannot be taken away by an administrative order or rule issued in the exercise of the executive power of the State, vide Sri. Dwarka Nath Tewari v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1959 SC 249 ). 36. The notification dated 24th September, 1975 (Annexure C to the writ petition) is issued under the powers conferred toy clause (i) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, The draft directions had been published in the Assam Gazette Extraordinary dated 25th June, 1975. The notification also recites that the representatives of the interests affected by the revision of fares had been given opportunity of being heard. Hence this notification enhancing the maximum rates of fare for stage carriages operating on routes within the municipal limits was issued in compliance with the requirements of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The contention to the contrary, urged on behalf of the interveners, has therefore, to be rejected. 37. On behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it is urged by Mr. Lahiri, that the impugned orders were issued after substantial compliance with the requiremeats of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that even if there are irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Government, they are not sufficient to vitiate the impugned orders. 37. On behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 it is urged by Mr. Lahiri, that the impugned orders were issued after substantial compliance with the requiremeats of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that even if there are irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Government, they are not sufficient to vitiate the impugned orders. Alternatively, it is his contention that the Government could issue the impugned orders under S. 14 of the General Clauses Act. 38. In B. Srikantiah v. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur (AIR 1971 SC 1706), a notification under Cl.(i) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act was issued by the Government directing the State Transport Authority to fix maximum fares inclusive of the leviable tax under the Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers and Goods) Act (Act XVI of 1952) for the stage carriages in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In view of the directions given by the Government in the said 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, in compliance with those directions, notified the operators. The operators contended that they could not collect the enhanced fares without the table of fares being amended since it would entail the cancellation of the permits. That contention was rejected and it was held that once the provisions of Ss. 43 (1) (i) and 44 (4) are complied with, S. 59(3) (c) comes into play and it had the effect of incorporating the maximum fares as notified including the tax leviable, as a condition of the permit. Following the above decision, it was held in Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1977 SC 418 ) that the Regional Transport Authority has only to annex the condition automatically once a direction is given by the State Government under Sec. 43 (1) (i) of the Act and it was observed as follows (at p. 420): "A reference to S. 59, sub-sec. (3) (c) would show that acceptance of the fixed rates of fares and freights, after their notification under S. 43, becomes a condition which has to be automatically attached to a permit. The Regional Transport Authority has no option on this matter. (3) (c) would show that acceptance of the fixed rates of fares and freights, after their notification under S. 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 v. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur, 1971 (Supp) SCR 816: ( AIR 1971 SC 1705 ). In other words, the Regional Transport Authority has to act merely mechanically after considering matters on which it has to form an opinion and take a decision quasi-judicially." 39. It is the contention of Mr. Lahiri that in the present case Annexure C relates to the fixation of the maximum fares only and that the fares become operative only when the fare table which is to be submitted by the bus operators is approved by the Regional Transport Authority. It is his further contention that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati was not empowered to approve the fare table and that even if he had given such approval, the approval is not valid. According to the petitioner, the fare table was in fact approved by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority as is evident from his letter dated 22-4-77 addressed to the petitioner No. 1-Association. It is also his contention that the usual practice is for the Government to fix the maximum fares only and that the maximum fare is understood to be the actual fare fixed by the Government. It is his further contention that similar action was taken by the Government on previous occasions earlier. It is therefore his contention that when the maximum fare was fixed by the Government in Annexure C, the maximum fare became incorporated in the permit since it is also the actual fare and that the decisions in B. Srikantiah v. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur ( AIR 1971 SC 1705 ) and Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka ( AIR 1977 SC 418 ) are applicable. 40. We have held that the notification dated 24th September, 1975 was in compliance with the provisions of S. 43 (1) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It fixed the maximum rates of fare for stage carriages operating on routes within the municipal limits. It also stated that those rates would come into force with effect from 1st October, 1975. 40. We have held that the notification dated 24th September, 1975 was in compliance with the provisions of S. 43 (1) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It fixed the maximum rates of fare for stage carriages operating on routes within the municipal limits. It also stated that those rates would come into force with effect from 1st October, 1975. In pursuance of Annexure C, the Government directed the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam (under Annexure F dated 6th April, 1977) to take steps as required under the law to give effect to the said notification with effect from 1st May, 1977. Annexure F also recites that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kamrup, Gauhati was also directed to give effect to the notification Annexure C, revising the city bus fare with effect from 1st May, 1977. On receipt of the Annexure F, the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam directed in his turn Secretaries of all the Regional Transport Authorities to give effect to the revision of stage carriage fares on the routes within the municipal limits with effect from 1st May, 1977 by his letter dated 11th April, 1977 (Annexure C to the Writ Petition). It is thereafter that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Gauhati addressed the letter dated 22-4-77 to the second petitioner (Annexure N to the writ petition) informing him that in conformity with the Government notification the fare sanctioned by the Government for city buses was approved and that the fare shall have to be realised inclusive of proportional rate of Assam Passengers and Goods Tax, though he mentioned in the said letter that the matter of the fare chart would be taken up in the next Regional Transport Authority meeting. 41. Since the direction issued under Annexure F was in compliance with S. 43 (1) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it conferred certain rights on the petitioners. According to the petitioner, the State Transport Authority is bound to implement the directions issued to it under Annexure F and the Regional Transport Authority is bound to implement the direction issued to it by the State Transport Authority under S. 44 and, therefore, it is immaterial if the actual fare table was approved by the Regional Transport Authority or not. According to the petitioner, the maximum fare fixed represents the actual fare. According to the petitioner, the maximum fare fixed represents the actual fare. But there is not sufficient material for us to determine if that was the usual practice as claimed by the petitioner. 42. In our opinion, it is not necessary to determine whether the. petitioners contention is correct or not. Even if the contention of Mr. Lahiri is correct that it is only the maximum fare permissible which is fixed by Annexure F it cannot be denied that the notification Annexure F confers certain definite rights on the petitioner. It enables him to demand that the Regional Transport Authority should fix higher fares than those prevailing prior to the date of Annexure F even if it is to be conceded that Annexure F has fixed only the maximum fares permissible. 43. The plea taken in the counter-affidavit of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is that the impugned actions of the Government are covered by S. 43 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The relevant part of S. 43 reads as follows:- "43. Power of State Government to control Road transport.- (1) A State Government, having regard to- (a) ............... (b) ............... (c) ............... (d) ............... may, from time to time, by notification in official Gazette, issue directions to the State Transport Authority- (i) regarding the fixing of fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and public carriers; (ii) ............... (iii) ............... (iv) ............... Provided that no such notification shall be issued unless a draft of the proposed directions is published in the Official Gazette specifying therein a date being not less than one month after such publication, on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration and any objection or suggestion which may be received has, in consultation with the State Transport Authority, been considered after giving the representatives of the interests affected an opportunity of being heard. (2) The State Government shall permit, at such intervals of time as it may fix, the interests affected by any notification issued under sub-sec. (1) to make representations urging the cancellation or variation of the notification on the following grounds, namely- (a)............... (b) that conditions have changed since the publication of the notification, or (c) that the special needs of a particular industry or locality require to be considered afresh. (1) to make representations urging the cancellation or variation of the notification on the following grounds, namely- (a)............... (b) that conditions have changed since the publication of the notification, or (c) that the special needs of a particular industry or locality require to be considered afresh. (3) If the State Government, after considering any representation made to it under sub-sec. (2), and having heard the representatives of the interests affected and the State Transport Authority, is satisfied that any notification issued under sub-section (1) ought to be cancelled or varied, it may cancel the notification or vary it in such manner as it thinks fit" 44. Under S. 43 (2), the State Government can permit the interests affected by any notification issued under sub-sec. (1) to make representations urging the cancellation or variation of the notification on certain grounds and those representations have to be made at such intervals of time as may be fixed by the State Government. One of the grounds on which cancellation or variation can be made under sub-sec. (2) of S. 43 is that conditions have changed since the publication of the notification. This provision is relied on by the respondents, Under sub-section (3) of S. 43, the State Government has to consider the representations made to it under sub-sec. (2) and has to hear the representatives of the interests affected and the State Transport Authority. Thereafter it has to be satisfied that any notification issued under sub-sec. (1) ought to be cancelled or varied. It is only then that the State Government may cancel the notification or vary it in such manner as it thinks fit. But all the above conditions precedent must be satisfied in order to enable the State Government to cancel or vary any notification issued under sub-sec. (1). 45. There is no allegation in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 3 that the State Government had fixed the intervals of time at which the interests affected could make representations urging cancellation or variation of the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 43. There is also no allegation in that counter-affidavit that conditions which prevailed at the time of the notification issued under sub-sec. . (1) of S. 43, namely, the Annexure F, had changed since the publication of the said notification. (1) of S. 43. There is also no allegation in that counter-affidavit that conditions which prevailed at the time of the notification issued under sub-sec. . (1) of S. 43, namely, the Annexure F, had changed since the publication of the said notification. Unless the State Government was satisfied that conditions had changed since the publication of the notification under sub-sec. (1), it had no power to cancel or vary the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 43. 46. The plea taken in the counter-affidavit of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is that the enhancement of the city bus fare as effected by the notification. Annexure F, with effect from 1st May, 1977 had caused widespread resentment among the users of the city buses at Gauhati as expressed through press and memoranda/representations submitted to them and that the State Government after considering the said memoranda and representations and having heard the interests affected through a series of discussions with the representatives of the petitioner-Association and the users of the city buses in the matter was satisfied that the notification ought to be varied. 47. The Contents of Annexure H, the order of the Government dated 1st June, 1977 shows that the question of providing concessional fare to the bona fide students in the State for travelling in the city buses had been under the consideration of the State Government for some time and that after a careful consideration of the question, the State Government had decided that the maximum rate of fare for the bona fide students should be reduced to that prevalent before the 1st May, 1977. There is no reference to any representations by the interests affected by the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) urging cancellation or variation of the said notification on the ground that conditions had changed since the publication of the said notification. There is no reference either to the consideration by the State Government of any such representation made to it under sub-sec. (2) or to its having heard the representatives of the interests affected as well as the State Transport Authority. 48. There is no reference either to the consideration by the State Government of any such representation made to it under sub-sec. (2) or to its having heard the representatives of the interests affected as well as the State Transport Authority. 48. Annexure I, the order of the Government dated 4th June, 1977 states that the enhancement of the fare in respect of the stage carriages plying on the routes within the municipal, limits as effected by Annexure F had caused widespread resentment among the travelling public, particularly among the student community at Gauhati. It further states that the State Government are therefore having the question of enhancement of the fare in respect of the said stage carriages examined de novo and had decided that the Government notification revising the city bus fare should be kept in abeyance with immediate effect until further orders. In this communication also there is no reference to any representations made by the interests affected urging cancellation or variation of the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 on the ground that conditions had changed since the publication of the said notification. There is also no mention of the consideration of any such representations made to it under sub-sec. (2) by the State Government. On the other hand the contents of the said letter show that the State Government desired to re-examine the question of enhancement of the fare in respect of stage carriages and therefore decided to keep in abeyance the said notification. Therefore, the contents of this order show that the State Government did not consider any representations made to it under sub-section (2) of S. 43, nor is there any reference in that order to the hearing afforded to the representatives of the interests affected as well as to the State Transport Authority before the decision was taken by the State Government. Hence this notification is not in compliance with sub-sec. (3) of S. 43, since the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power under the said sub-section have not been complied with. 49. Hence this notification is not in compliance with sub-sec. (3) of S. 43, since the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power under the said sub-section have not been complied with. 49. The order of the Government dated 5th June, 1977, Annexure J to the Writ Petition, issued to the Secretary, State Transport Authority states that the question of the fare structure is being examined by a committee which is being set up by Government for this, purpose and directs that the fares obtaining prior to 1-5-77 is to be reintroduced with immediate effect within the municipal limits. 50. The contents of this order also show that the State Government was contemplating the examination of the question of fare structure by a Committee which had to be set up by the Government for the purpose and had not felt satisfied that cancellation or variation of the earlier notification was necessary. 51. The decision of the Government to keep in abeyance the notification, Annexure F, amounts to the cancellation of the said notification or at least to a variation of the said notification since the said notification had to be given effect to from 1st May, 1977. The order of the Government directing concessional fares to be charged to bona fide students also has the effect of varying the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 43. The order of the Government, Annexure J, reintroducing the fares which existed prior to the enhancement under the notification Annexure F, also amounts to variation of the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 43. 52. Thus the action of the Government under the impugned orders can be justified only if the conditions precedent to the exercise of power under sub-section (3) of S. 43 are complied with. There is no material to show that any representations by persons affected by the notification Annexure F urging cancellation or variation of the notification on the ground that conditions had changed since the publication of the notification had been received by the State Government. There is not even an allegation that the State Government had fixed the intervals of time at which such representation could be made to it as contemplated under the provisions of sub-section (2) of S. 43. From the contents of the impugned orders it is clear that the State Government had, firstly, not considered any representations made to it under sub-sec. From the contents of the impugned orders it is clear that the State Government had, firstly, not considered any representations made to it under sub-sec. (2) for the simple reason that no such representations as contemplated under sub-sec. (2) of S. 43 had been received by it; secondly, there is nothing to show that the State Government heard the representatives of the interests affected as well as the State Transport Authority before coming to any decision; thirdly, there is no material to show that the State Government had been actually satisfied that the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) needs cancellation or variation. It is because of this that the State thought it fit to take necessary steps for having the whole question of enhancement of the fare re-examined by a Committee to be appointed by it. It is thus clear that the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power under sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 43 are absent in the present case. 53. Mr. Lahiri further contended that S. 14 of the General Clauses Act enables the State Government to issue the impugned orders, Section 14 of the General Clauses Act provides that any power conferred by any Central Act or Regulation may be exercised from time to time as occasion arises unless a different Intention appears. 54. Since the State Government purports to have acted under sub-sec. (3) of S. 43, it is necessary that the conditions precedent to the exercise of that power must be satisfied Section 43 itself provides the conditions under which the power to issue notification under sub-sec. (1) of that section have to be satisfied. Since the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 43 is itself conditional upon the fulfilment of the requirements of the proviso to that sub-section, S. 14 of the General Clauses Act cannot be made use of in support of the argument that a subsequent notification can be issued under sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 without complying with the conditions laid down to the proviso to sub-sec. (1). Section 14 of the General Clauses Act is not applicable since sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 itself provides that the state Government may by notification in the official Gazette issue directions to the State Transport Authority from time to time and also states the conditions subject to which it can be done. 55. (1). Section 14 of the General Clauses Act is not applicable since sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 itself provides that the state Government may by notification in the official Gazette issue directions to the State Transport Authority from time to time and also states the conditions subject to which it can be done. 55. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act provides that where a power is conferred by any Central Act or Regulation to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws, then that power includes a power to add to, amend, vary or rescind the same provided the power is exercised in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and condition Section 21 has been held to contain a rule of interpretation by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. D. N. Ganguly ( AIR 1958 SC 1018 ), as noticed above. The question whether the provisions of S. 21 apply to a power conferred under any enactment has to be considered having regard to the scheme and object of the enactment as well as the context in which the, power is conferred. But In the present case sub-sec. (1) of S. 43 empowers the State Government to issue directions to the State Transport Authority from time to time, but it also lays down the conditions subject to which a notification can be issued from time to time, namely, the conditions set out in the proviso to that sub-section. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 43 also provide the conditions subject to which the notification issued under sub-sec. (1) can be cancelled or varied Hence if the State Government desire to cancel or vary a notification issued under sub-sec. (1), it can do so only subject to the conditions laid down in sub-sees. (2) and (3). Therefore, S. 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be said to be applicable to the exercise of the power under S. 43 (1) to issue directions to the State Transport Authority. Since there is no compliance with the sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 43, the State Government had no power to cancel or vary the earlier notification issued under sub-sec (1) of S. 43. 56. Since there is no compliance with the sub-secs. (2) and (3) of S. 43, the State Government had no power to cancel or vary the earlier notification issued under sub-sec (1) of S. 43. 56. The State cannot claim any executive power outside the omits prescribed by the legislature as observed by the Supreme Court in Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab v. Om Parkash ( AIR 1969 SC 33 ), in the following words (at p. 36): "In this context it is essential to emphsise that under our constitutional system the authority to make that law is invested in the Parliament and the State Legislatures and other law-making bodies and whatever legislative power the executive administration possesses must be derived directly from the delegation of the legislature and exercised validly only within the limits prescribed. The notion of inherent or autonomous law-making power in the executive administration is a notion that must be emphatically rejected." 57. The Government could therefore exercise its powers to rescind or vary the terms of the earlier notification issued by it under S. 43 (1) only by following the procedure laid down in S. 43 itself. It has not followed the procedure laid down in either of the sub-sees. (1), (2) or (3) of S. 43. Therefore, the impugned orders violate the rights of the petitioner and the action of the State Government is not warranted by law. The impugned orders are therefore quashed. 58. The Rule is made absolute and respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to forbear from giving effect to the said orders. 59. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- I agree. D. PATHAK, J.:- I agree. LAHIRI, J.:- I concur. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH, J.:- I agree. Rule made absolute.