http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: CHIEF COMNISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHADHA MOTOR  TRANSPORT CO.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/1968

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SHAH, J.C. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1199            1968 SCR  (3) 359

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939, s. 68(2) (ww)-Persons  doing  the business  of collecting, forwarding and  distributing  goods carried  by public carriers required by  notification  under section  to take out licences-Validity of  notification  and section.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent was engaged in the business  of  collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public carriers in   Delhi.    The  Chief  Commissioner,  Delhi   issued   a notification under s. 68(2) (ww) of the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939  whereby  the respondent and those engaged  in  similar business were required to take out licences.  The respondent filed  a writ petition in the Punjab High Court  challenging cl.  (ww)  of  s. 68(2) and the  aforesaid  notification  on various  grounds  and  asking  for  an  order  quashing  the notification.   The  High Court allowed  the  writ  petition holding that as the rules frame under s. 68 can be made only for  the purpose of carrying into effect the  provisions  of Chapter  IV  of  the Act, and in Chapter  IV  there  was  no substantive  provision  requiring  agents  engaged  in   the business  of collecting, forwarding and  distributing  goods carried  by  public  carriers  to  take  out  licences,  the legislature  had  no  power to enact cf. (ww)  of  s.  68(2) authorising  the framing of the rules for the  licensing  of such  agents.   The  appellants  came  to  this  Court  with certificate. HELD : The appeal must be allowed. Section  68(2) specifically enumerates the matter  on  which rules  under  the  section can be made for  the  purpose  of carrying  into effect the provisions of Chapter IV.   Clause (ww)  of  s.  68 (2) is an expression of  the  will  of  the legislature  that rules for the licensing of agents  engaged in  the business of collecting, forwarding and  distributing goods carried by public carriers may be made for the purpose of  carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV.   The proposition that the legislature must in the first  instance incorporate  in the Act a section requiring a class of  per- sons  to  take out licences before it can  enact  a  section authorising  the  making  of rules  for  such  licensing  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

unsound  and must be rejected.  Within the limits  of  their legislative  powers, parliament and the  State  legislatures have plenary powers of legislation and they may delegate  to an  executive  authority  the power to make  rules  for  the licensing of any class of persons. [360 H-361 C] [Case   remanded  to  High  Court  for   considering   other contentions raised in the petition.]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE,  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  466  of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1961 of the  Punjab  High Court Circuit Bench at  Delhi  in  Letters Patent Appeal No. 15-D of 1958. B. R L. Iyengar and S. P. Nayar, for the appellants. Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondent. Sup.  C.1.168-10 360 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The respondent carries on the business of  col- lecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public carriers   in  Delhi.   On  October  27,  1956,  the   Chief Commissioner, Delhi issued a notification under S. 68(2)(ww) of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.  Under this  notification, the  respondent and other agents engaged in the business  of collecting,  forwarding  and distributing goods  carried  by public  carriers  are required to take  out  licences.   The respondent  filed a writ petition in the Punjab  High  Court challenging   cl.  (ww)  of  S.  68(2)  and  the   aforesaid notification on various grounds and asking for an order qua- shing  the notification.  A single Judge of the  High  Court struck down cl. (ww) and allowed the writ petition.  He held that  the clause was ultra vires and invalid  and  therefore the  notification  issued under it was  also  invalid.   His decision was affirmed on Letters Patent Appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court.  The appellants have preferred  the present appeal from this order after obtaining a certificate from the High Court. Chapter  IV  of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939  provides  for control of transport vehicles.  The chapter contains ss.  42 to  68. Section 68(1) provides that a State  Government  may make  rules  for  the purpose of carrying  into  effect  the provisions  of  Chap.   IV.   Section  68(2)  provides  that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing  power, rules  under the section may be made with respect to all  or any  of  the matters enumerated in the  various  sub-clauses thereof.   Clause (ww) of S. 68(2) provides that  the  State Government  may  make  rules for "the  licensing  of  agents engaged  in  the  business  of  collecting,  forwarding  and distribution  of  goods carried by  public  carriers."  This clause’,Was inserted in S. 68(2) by Delhi Act No. 5 of  1954 and also later by Central Act No. 100 of 1956. The High Court held that as the rules framed under s. 68 can be  made  only for the purpose of carrying into  effect  the provisions  of  Chap.   IV,  such rules  must  relate  to  a substantive  provision of law in the chapter.  As there  was no  substantive  provision  in Chap.   IV  requiring  agents engaged  in  the  business  of  collecting,  forwarding  and distributing  goods carried by public carriers to  take  out licences, the legislature had no power to enact cl. (ww)  of S. 68(2) authorising the framing of rules for the  licensing of  such  agents.   The  legislature  must,  in  the   first instance,  make  a  law requiring such agents  to  take  out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

licences.  As the legislature did not make such a  law,  the clause is ultra vires its powers and is invalid. We  are  unable to accept this line of  reasoning.   Section 68(2)  specifically  enumerates the matters on  which  rules under the 361 section can be made for the purpose of carrying into  effect the provisions of Chap.  IV.  Clause (ww) of s. 68(2) is  an expression of the will of the legislature that rules for the licensing  of events engaged in the business of  collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried by public carriers may  be  made for the purpose of carrying  into  effect  the provisions   of  Chap.   IV.   The  proposition   that   the legislature  must in the first instance incorporate  in  the Act  a  section  requiring a class of persons  to  take  out licences  before  it  can enact a  section  authorising  the making  of rules for such licensing is unsound and  must  be rejected.   Within the limits of their  legislative  powers, Parliament and the State legislatures have plenary powers of legislation, and they may delegate to an executive authority the  power to make rules for the licensing of any  class  of persons.  This law may be open to attack on the ground  that it is not on a matter on which the legislature is  competent to legislate or on the ground that there is excessive  dele- gation  of legislative power.  But it cannot be struck  down on  the  ground  that  the legislature  has  made  no  other provision for licensing in the body of the Act.  There is no constitutional  prohibition  against the making.  of  a  law authorising  the  making of rules on any topic  without  the support of another substantive provision of law in the  body of  the  Act.   Take Chap.  VII of the  Motor  Vehicles  Act dealing with motor vehicles temporarily leaving or  visiting India.   That chapter contains one section, namely,  s.  92. The  section  provides  for the making of  rules  only.   It authorises  the Central Government to make rules inter  alia for  the  grant  and authentication  of  travelling  passes, certificates or authorisations to persons temporarily taking motor  vehicles out of India to any place outside India  and prescribing  the conditions subject to which motor  vehicles brought temporarily into India from outside India by persons intending to make a temporary stay in India may be possessed and used in India.  There is no other substantive  provision of law in Chap.  VII or any other Chapter of the Act on  the subject  of motor vehicles temporarily leaving  or  visiting India.  But the absence of such a substantive provision does not render either s. 92 or the rules made under it  invalid. If  the  Central Government frames rules under s.  92,  such rules must be complied with. We,  therefore,  hold that cl. (ww) of s.  68(2)  cannot  be struck down on the ground that there is no other substantive provision of law in the body of the Act requiring the taking out  of  licences.   On  behalf of  the  respondent  it  was suggested  that the clause is invalid on the ground that  it is  a  law  on a subjection which  the  legislature  is  not competent  to legislate.  It was also suggested that  it  is bad  on  the ground of excessive delegation  of  legislative power.   The  High Court has not struck down the  clause  on either of these grounds.  Nor has the High Court  considered the other 362 grounds  raised in the petition challenging the validity  of the notification dated October 27, 1956.  As the High  Court has  not  dealt  with the other contentions  raised  in  the petition, the matter must be remanded to the High Court. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the  High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Court  is set aside and the matter is remanded to  the  High Court, so that the High Court may deal with it in accordance with  law.  In the circumstances of the case, there will  be no order as to costs in this Court. G.C.                                   Appeal allowed. 363