Pyare Lal v. Competent Authority — 1986 DIGILAW 771 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. - A large number of "Mini Buses" were granted permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for being plied as "contract carriages". In practice they were commonly plied as stage carriages. In order to stopping this flagrant disregard of law, the State Government issued orders for the enforcement of conditions of the permit. As a result, a number of operators of Mini Buses were thrown out of the employment. In order to meet such a situation, the State Legislature passed an Act known as U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976) (in brief the Act). This Act came into force with effect from 5-7-1976. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill amongst others recited : "It has, therefore, been decided that the operators of such mini buses, may, on certain conditions, be allowed to operate on specified nationalised routes subject to certain financial and administrative arrangements with the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. It is also proposed to allow them to operate on certain new routes and on routes covered by schemes published under section 68-C of the Act. It is, necessary to make specific provision in law for achieving the above object." Section 4 of the Act reads as under:- "4.(1) Where any person, not being an institution or corporate body, owning a mini bus has been given a permit for such mini bus to be used as a contract carriage, the competent authority may, on his application, authorise its use as a stage carriage within specified limit covered by an approved scheme, subject to such terms and conditions, which may be in respect of matters specified in sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the principal Act or in respect of any other matter, as it thinks fit, and for the period during which such authorisation is in force, the permit shall be deemed modified to the extent of such authorisation. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1) it shall be the condition of such authorisation that the owner of the mini bus shall pay such amounts to the corporation as may be fixed by the competent authority having regard to the nature and class of route, the distance covered, the seating capacity and other relevant factors, and abide by such administrative and operational control of the corporation as the competent authority may from time to time by order direct." 2. Under the aforesaid Act, the petitioners were given authorisation certificates by the Competent Authority for operating their mini buses as stage carriages on Shamli-Baraut- Loni under Section 4 of the Act. 3. In 1977, each one of the petitioners was permitted to provide two return services per day between Loni and Baraut, the distance between the two places being about 40 Kilometres. At the time of giving of authorisation certificates under sub-section (2) of Section 4 the Competent Authority fixed Rs. 600/- per month as the Administrative, Operational and Control Charges (hereinafter referred to as A.O. C. C.) payable by the petitioners to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. By means of resolution dated 22nd June, 1982, the rates provided for by section 4(2) of the Act were refixed. The rates as fixed by the resolution were as follows : "(1) xzkeh.k ekxksZa esa lapkfyr feuh clksa ds fy, orZeku nj dk 50 izfr'kr vFkkZr 600@& LFkku ij 900@& ( 2 ) uxjh; ekxksZa esa lapkfyr feuh clksa ds fy, orZeku nj dk 25 izfr'kr vFkkZr 500@& ds LFkku ij 625@& izfrekgA ;g u;h njs 1&7&82 ls ykxw gksxhA " 4. On the rates being increased, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioners on the ground that the Competent Authority acted arbitrarily in enhancing the AOCC from Rs. 600/- per month to Rs. 900/- per month inasmuch as there was no relevant material, whatsoever, before the Competent Authority so as to enable it to enhance AOCC payable by the petitioners. It was further urged that the Competent Authority while fixing AOCC has to consider the following four factors: (i) the nature and class of route; (ii) the distance covered, (iii) the seating capacity; and (iv) other relevant factors. As all the factors, stated above, were not considered by the Competent Authority before increasing the AOCC from Rs. It was further urged that the Competent Authority while fixing AOCC has to consider the following four factors: (i) the nature and class of route; (ii) the distance covered, (iii) the seating capacity; and (iv) other relevant factors. As all the factors, stated above, were not considered by the Competent Authority before increasing the AOCC from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 900/-, the order enhancing the aforesaid amount was invalid. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Annexures I and 11 of the counter- affidavit and urged that the only factor disclosed, which had been taken into consideration, was that AOCC had not been revised even though the fares had gone up since 1976 by 25 per cent and then 15 per cent and further that the expenses of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation has gone up considerably these years. According to the petitioners' counsel, the facior taken into account for enhancement of AOCC by the Competent Authority was irrelevant and, as such, the enhancement was not enforceable. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act provides that any one who gets the authorisation certificate for plying a mini bus as the stage carriage on the route would abide by such administrative and operational control of the Corporation as the Competent Authority may from time to time by order direct. The Competent Authority by the earlier portion of sub-section (2) of Section 4 has been authorised to fix such amounts as may be payable as AOCC by the person obtaining the authorisation certificate. Regulation 13 which has been framed for carrying out the purpose of the Act lays down amongst others : "13. Administrative, operational and control charges : (i) The Administrative, operational and control charges will be fixed by the competent authority from time to time." 7. Reading the two provisions together, it appears that the power to fix the AOCC can be exercised by the Competent Authority from time to time, The amount once fixed can be revised, enhanced or increased. While fixing the AOCC, the Competent Authority is required to have regard to the factors which have been noted by us above. Reading the two provisions together, it appears that the power to fix the AOCC can be exercised by the Competent Authority from time to time, The amount once fixed can be revised, enhanced or increased. While fixing the AOCC, the Competent Authority is required to have regard to the factors which have been noted by us above. The submission that was raised by the petitioners' learned counsel was that if any one of the four factors is not taken into account or considered at the time of re-fixation or enhancement, the fixation would be in contravention of sub- section (2) of Section 4 and in that event would not be valid. 8. In S. N. Transport Co. v. State Transport Authority, AIR 1957 Cal 638 , Bose, J., who had as occasion to consider the words "shall have regard to" obbserved : "It appears to me that the words 'shall have regard to' in Section 47 (of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) imply that the section is not exhaustive. The requirement of section is that the matters specified in the section must be taken into consideration in other words the primary duty of the Regional Transport Authority is to take into consideration the matters specified. But it does not follow that the hands of the Regional Transport Authority are tied to the consideration of these matters alone and they must shut eyes in everything else." 9. The important words in sub-section (2) of Section 4 which deserve notice are "other relevant factors". The expression "other relevant factors" mean a thing is relevant when it has a logical connection with the matter under consideration or in other words it has a bearing upon the matter in hand. From the use of this word relevant, it is demonstrated that the Competent Authority has not to strictly confine itself to the matters enumerated as (i) to (iii) as was argued by the petitioners' learned counsel. The authority can take into account any consideration which may be thought to be relevant for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4. The power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 cannot thus be held to be invalidly exercised if one or more of the conditions in (i) to (iii) are missing. The authority can take into account any consideration which may be thought to be relevant for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4. The power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 cannot thus be held to be invalidly exercised if one or more of the conditions in (i) to (iii) are missing. The expression "have regard to" employed by the Legislature is determinative of its intention that the hands of the Competent Authority are not tied to the consideration of these matters alone. The Competent Authority cannot shut its eyes to other relevant facts which may be necessary or may have a bearing on the exercise of power of fixation or refixation of the A.O.C.C. 10. On the direction of this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has produced the relevant record containing the resolution by which the A.O.C.C. had been increased. The A.O.C.C. in respect of mini buses was initially fixed on 1-12-1986 and there had been no increase e since then, even though the bus fares had increased considerably and the expenses of the Corporation had also gone up. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the rise in the expenses of the Corporation was wholly irrelevant consideration for raising the A.O.C.C. We are, however, unable to agree with this submission. The A.O.C.C. were meant to be paid by the operators getting authorisation certificates to enable the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation to keep a control on the proper functioning or running of the mini buses, since the proper running of the mini buses and of those who were given authorisation certificates were essential for the successful operation of the Act. 12. From the writ petition and the counter-affidavit as well as, the record produced before us it appears that the administrative, operational and control charges had been revised by the Competent Authority after taking into consideration the representation and other relevant factors after six years after increase in fares by 25 per cent and then 15 per cent. 13. 12. From the writ petition and the counter-affidavit as well as, the record produced before us it appears that the administrative, operational and control charges had been revised by the Competent Authority after taking into consideration the representation and other relevant factors after six years after increase in fares by 25 per cent and then 15 per cent. 13. Counsel for the petitioners contended that before the A.O.C.C. had been increased by the Competent Authority under sub- section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, it was incumbent upon the authority to have been an opportunity of hearing the persons who were going to be affected by the same and as no such opportunity was given, increase was invalid. There is nothing either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder to give opportunity to the persons who were likely to be affected to make representation to the Competent Authority. There is no such principle of law that before a statutory power is exercised, persons who may be affected, should be heard. It was for the Legislature which confers the rule making power to decide in what form such power should be conferred. The Legislature has not done so in the present case. A similar argument advanced in D. K. Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1986 SC 1323 , against enhancement of the deed rent was repelled by the Supreme Court on the ground that since the Rules did not admit any opportunity of hearing being given the enhancement could not be invalid. 14. Learned counsel next urged that when an order enhancing the AOCC is based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged with reference to the reasons mentioned therein, and it cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise to justify the order and, consequently, the enhancement could not be justified on the basis of the record. The submission made has no legs to stand upon. In case a statute requires that the reasons will have to be incorporated in the order itself, in that event an order cannot be justified on the basis of disclosure of reasons by affidavit or by producing the record. But where, as here, in the absence of statutory requirements to give reasons, the order of the Competent Authority under sub-section (2) of section 4 need not have been a speaking order. But where, as here, in the absence of statutory requirements to give reasons, the order of the Competent Authority under sub-section (2) of section 4 need not have been a speaking order. On being called upon to justify the order, the State was entitled to file the affidavit and also produce before the Court the record which recorded the reasons and contained the materials in justification of the increase c r enhancement. The decision relied upon b the petitioners' counsel reported in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Electric Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , is distinguishable. 15. In the two cases of compulsory retirement reported in Baldeoraj v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 70 and S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49 , the Supreme Court looked into the records to find out whether there was justification for the Government order or not. Moreover, as observed above, where it is not incumbent on the Government or the Authority to give reasons for its opinion, the absence of reasons in the order itself would not be vitiated. 16. It has been contended by the petitioners' counsel by applying the rule of ejusdem generis that the Competent Authority could consider only those grounds for passing the order which were analogous to the ground enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and as its consideration has not confined to those grounds but has travelled outside, the order of the Competent Authority in including the A.O.C.C. is invalid. We do not agree with this submission. As we have already noted above that the use of the expression 'relevant factors' is wider in its import and contents, we must reject the submission of the learned counsel for applying the rule of ejusdem generic in this case. The legislature has widened the power of the Competent Authority by conferring upon him the power which has not to confine only to the relevant factors, mentioned above. The words of Mr. The legislature has widened the power of the Competent Authority by conferring upon him the power which has not to confine only to the relevant factors, mentioned above. The words of Mr. Driedger may be quoted : Where general words are found, following an enumeration of persons or things all susceptible of being regarded as specimens of a single genus or category, but not exhaustive thereof, their construction should be restricted to things of that class or category, unless it is reasonably clear from the context or the general scope and purview of the Act that Parliament intended that they should be given a broader signification." 17. In the instant case, however, it is not necessary for us to deal with the rule of ejusdem generic. 18. For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs to the U. P. State and Transport Corporation. Interim stay order is vacated.