http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1385-1406 of 1998

PETITIONER: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

RESPONDENT: B.Noorulla Khan & Another etc.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/2004

BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

BHAN,J.

       State of Andhra Pradesh & Others have filed these appeals  challenging the impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of Andhra  Pradesh High  Court wherein  it  has struck down Rules 297-A(1)(c) and  297-A(6)(f) of The Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short  ’the State Rules’) being ultra vires the provisions of The Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) and Article 19(1)(g) of the  Constitution of India.  The Division Bench has also held that the rules  framed by the State Government under sections 95 and 96 of the Act and the  further conditions prescribed in section 74 of the Act are not applicable to  all-India tourist permit vehicles.

       Original writ petitioners, respondents herein, are either the holders of  contract carriage permits granted under Section 74 of the Act or holders of  all-India tourist permits granted under Section 88 of the Act.   The checking  officials seized and detained the vehicles being of the opinion that the  vehicles were being used as Stage Carriages.  This action of the authorities  was challenged by the respondents by filing a set of writ petitions which  were disposed of by a Division Bench on 12th September, 1995.  Vires of the  Rules were not challenged in these writ petitions.  The writ petitions were  dismissed and it was held that the authorities had the power to detain  vehicles during transit as and when any violation of the rules was found at  the time of checking.  The vehicles were again seized and detained and  thereafter the respondents filed the present set of writ petitions challenging  the constitutional validity of Rules 185 (e)(v), 297-A(1)(c), 297-A(2)(b) read  with 297-A(6)(b)(i) and 297-A(6)(f) of the State Rules being ultra vires the  provisions of the Constitution of India and the Act.  By the impugned  judgment, the High Court has upheld the validity of Rules 185(e)(v), 297- A(2)(b) and 297-A(6)(b)(i).  The respondents have not carried appeals to  challenge the part of the judgment by which the High Court has upheld the  constitutional validity of the Rules, referred to above.

       Section 2(4) of the Act defines the Stage Carriage.  Section 2(7)  defines the Contract Carriage.  Chapter V deals with the control of the  transport vehicles.  Section 72 vests the Regional Transport Authority with  the power to grant State carriage permit [or refuse it] subject to the Rules  framed and attach any one or more of the conditions mentioned under   Section 72(2) of the Act.  Section 74 enables the concerned authority to  grant contract carriage permit. Section 84 envisages the general conditions  attaching to all permits. Section 86 vests the authority with the power  to  cancel or suspend the permits.  Section 88 provides for validation of permits  used outside the region in which it is granted.  Section 88(9) enables the  State Transport Authority to grant all-India tourist permits subject to the  Rules framed by the Central Government under clause 14 of Section 88 for  the whole of India or in such contiguous States, not less than 3 in number,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

including the State in which the permit is issued, as per choice indicated in  the application.  The provisions of Sections 73, 74, 80 to 86 and  Clause (d)  of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall as far as may be apply  in relation to such permits.  Section 88(11) lays down the condition of  every  permit granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88.  Section 88(11)(iii)  empowers the Central Government to prescribe other conditions of permit.   Sub-section (14)(a) of Section 88 empowers the Central Government to  make rules to carry out the provisions of section 88. Section 95 of the Act  empowers the State Government to make rules as to Stage Carriages and  Contract Carriages and the conduct of passengers in such vehicles.  Section  96 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of Chapter  V to carry into effect the provisions of the said Chapter.

         The High Court held that reading of Section 2(7) indicated that the  ’common purpose’ means that all the passengers travelling in the contract  carriage must have a common destination, but it could not be stretched  beyond that and to hold that purpose of going to a common destination must  also be the same.  That it could not be held that the travelling party, as a  whole, must have one ’common purpose’; it was enough if they had a  common destination.  If common purpose as defined by rules is read into the  definition of Section 2(7) then it would amount to amending or modifying  the said section which is within the purview of the legislature only. The  High Court has further held that the rules could not go beyond the Act and  therefore rule 297-A(1)(c) was ultra vires the provisions of the main Act as  well as the Constitution of India.

       The High Court has also held that Rule 297-A (6)(f) contemplates that  where a public service vehicle has been, as a whole, engaged by a hiring  party, an agreement shall be drawn up in writing and executed by the agent     and the hiring party or its authorised representative containing the particulars  mentioned therein.  The rule obligates the agent to enter into a written  agreement with the hiring party.

       According to the High Court, under Section 2(7), a contract could be  either express or implied.  The express contract could be taken to include a  written contract but implied contract itself denotes that it is not mandatory to  have a written contract. Rules could not go beyond the purview of the Act or  contrary to the Act.  Since the definition of contract carriage contemplates  express as well as implied contract, an oral contract could also be entered  into.  The provision made under Rule 297-A(6)(f)   mandating the agent to  enter into written contract was ultra vires the Section 2(7) and therefore  liable to be struck down.

       In so far as all-India tourist permits are concerned it has been held by  the High Court that under Section 88(14)(a), it is the Central Government  alone which can frame the Rules to carry out the provisions of Section 88  and  the  State  Government  has  no  authority  to  frame  rules  in  regard  to  all-India tourist permits in exercise of its powers under Sections 95 and 96 of  the Act. Since the rules framed by the State Government as made applicable  to all-India tourist permits run contrary to the Rules framed  by the Central  Government the same were bad in law being repugnant.          

Section 93 of the Act provides that an agent or canvasser who is  engaged in the sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles  or in  otherwise soliciting customers for such vehicles is required to obtain  a  licence from such authority and subject to such conditions as may be  prescribed by the State Government.  Sub-section (2) enumerates the  conditions of such a licence as to the duration of the licence, fee payable,  deposit of security, provision as to the insurance of goods in the transit, and  the circumstances under which the licence may be suspended or revoked.   Clause (f) vests the State Government with the authority to lay "such other  conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government".  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Rule 297-A of the State Rules makes special provisions for licensing  of agents engaged in the sales of tickets or in otherwise soliciting customers  for public service vehicles.  Rules 297-A(1)(c) and 297-A (6) (f) which have  struck down by the High Court, read as follows:

"297-A. Special provisions regarding licensing of  agents engaged in the sales of tickets or in otherwise  soliciting customers for public service vehicles:-   (1)     In this rule, unless the context otherwise requires.   Xxx                     xxx

(c) "Common purpose of journey" means the intention  shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public  service vehicles;

(i)     to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social,  religious, political and the like, or (ii)    to go on a pilgrimage or tour to visit places of  tourist’s interest or both.  But it shall not include  the intention or the act of such persons of merely  travelling from one common point to another."

Section 297-A (6) (f):

"An agent’s licence shall be subject to the  following conditions:

               xxx             xxx

(f)     Where the public service vehicle has been,  as a whole, engaged by a hiring party an agreement  shall be drawn up in writing and executed by the  agent and the hiring party or its authorised  representative containing the following essential  particulars and stipulations, namely:

(i)     Name, Father’s/Husband’s Name,  Age/Occupation and full postal address of  the members or/representative of the hiring  party who executes the agreement; (ii)    An Annexure containing the list of all  members of the hiring party giving their  particulars in the following form:

1.      Serial number, 2.      Name of the Member: 3.      Father’s/Husband’s name: 4.      Age: 5.      Full Postal Address:

(iii)   The nature of the common purpose of the  journey; (iv)    The period for which the vehicle is engaged  by the hiring party; (v)     The places to be visited by the hiring party; (vi)    The place or places to be specified where all  or some to be specified of the members of  the hiring party are to be picked up or let  down under the agreement; (vii)   Hire charges,

a)      if payable in a lumpsum, the amount so

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

payable; or b)      if calculable at a rate, the rate so agreed  upon; and c)      in either case, the amount if any paid in  advance and the time for the payment of  the balance.  

(viii)  Additional charges, if any, payable in case  the journey is delayed or extended at the  instance of the hiring party."

"Contract Carriage" in Section 2(7) has been defined as:

"2(7): ’Contract Carriage’ means a motor vehicle which  carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and  is engaged under a contract, whether express or implied,  for the use of such vehicle, as a whole for the carriage of  passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a  person with a holder of permit in relation to such vehicle  or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed  or an agreed rate or sum, -

(a)     on a time basis, whether or not with reference to  any route or distance; or (b)     from one point to another;

and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set  down passengers not included in the contract anywhere  during the journey, and includes\027 (i)     a maxicab; and (ii)    a motorcar  notwithstanding the separate fares are  charged for its passengers."

Definition of  contract carriage makes it clear that:

1.      In order that a vehicle can be used to transport  passenger/passengers there must a prior contract express or  implied; 2.      Contract shall have to be entered into by a person with the  holder of the permit or any person authorised by him; 3.      Engagement under the contract must be for use of the vehicle as  a whole; 4.      Contract must indicate the names of passengers to be carried in  the vehicle; 5.      Vehicle is engaged on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum on a  time basis whether or not with reference to any route or  distance;                                 or from one point to another; 6.      Without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not  included in the contract anywhere during the journey.

In Rule 297-A(1)( c) ’common purpose of journey’ has been  explained to mean common intention shared by all the persons travelling by  the vehicle under the contract to attend a meeting, gathering or function  which may be social, religious, political and the like or to go on a pilgrimage  or place of tourist’s interest but it shall not include the intention or the act of  such persons of merely travelling from one common point to another.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

       High Court has held that  ’common purpose’ means that the  passengers travelling together need to have the common intention to travel to  a common destination but they need not share the common intention of  travelling for the same purpose as well. For instance, where a group of  persons engage a contract carriage vehicle for travelling from Delhi to Agra  they have the common intention of travelling to the same destination i.e.  from Delhi to Agra but their purpose of travel from Delhi to Agra could be  different.  In other words, according to the High Court, the words "under a  contract" would include both single contract and more than one contract.   

This point was examined by this Court in Brijendra Kumar  Chaudhari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1992 (4) SCC 703.  It was  held that it was not correct to read the words "under a contract" occurring in  Section 2(7) of the Act to mean as referring to both a single contract and  more than one contract.  And in case such a construction is placed then the  distinction between the contract carriage and the stage carriage permits  would be lost and obliterated.  It was held:          "10.    The definition makes it clear that in order  that a vehicle could be used to transport passenger  or passengers there must be a prior contract  express or implied; that the contract must indicate  as to who are the passengers to be carried; that the  contract shall have been entered into by a person  with the holder of the permit or any person  authorised by him; and that the engagement under  "a contract" is for use of the vehicle as a whole. It  is not possible to read the words "under a contract"  in the context as referring to both a single contract  and more than one contract. If the construction  placed by the learned counsel is accepted there  would be no distinction between stage carriage and  contract carriage permits. Both these classes of  permits are intended to meet different  requirements. A stage carriage is intended to meet  the requirements of the general travelling public.  But the contract carriages are for those who want  to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a  group or party for their transport from place to  place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal.  This is also made clear in Section 88(8) of the Act  corresponding to Section 63(6) of the old Act  wherein it is provided:

"88(8)  Notwithstanding anything  contained in sub-section (1), but subject to  any rules that may be made under this Act  by the Central Government, the Regional  Transport Authority of any  one region or, as  the case may be, the State Transport  Authority, may, for the convenience of the  public, grant a special permit in relation to a  vehicle covered by a permit issued under  Section 72(including a reserve stage  carriage) or under Section 74 or under sub- section (9) of this section for carrying a  passenger or passengers for hire or reward  under a contract, express or implied, for the  use of the  vehicle as a whole without  stopping to pick up or set down along the  line of route passengers not included  in the  contract, and in every case where such  special permit is granted, the Regional  Transport Authority shall assign to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

vehicle, for display thereon, a special  distinguishing mark in the form and manner  specified by the Central Government and  such special permit shall be valid in any  other region or State without the  countersignature of the Regional Transport  Authority of the other region or of the State  Transport Authority of the other State, as the  case may be."

That the contract shall be prior and the persons  who are to be carried shall be known prior to the  journey is also clear from the other limitation that  the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down  passengers not included in the contract anywhere  during the journey.  As pointed out by this Court in  Roshan Lal Gauthan v. State of U.P (AIR 1965 SC  991).:

"The contract carriage is engaged for the  whole of the journey between two points for  carriage of a person or persons hiring it but  it has not the right to pick up other  passengers on route.  The stage carriage, on  the other hand, runs between two points  irrespective of any prior contract and it is  boarded by passengers en route who pay the  fare for distance they propose to travel."                    

If as contended by the learned counsel contract carriage  permit holder can pick up individual passengers at the  starting point of the journey it is  virtually a stage  carriage with corridor restriction.  Some express buses  and stage carriages with corridor restriction pick up  passengers at the starting point of the journey and drop  them at the last terminus of the route without the right to  pick up or drop passengers on the notified route between  the two termini.  Further the definition in the Act has  added the words "for the carriage of passengers  mentioned therein (contract)" which were not there  earlier.  These words clearly show that there must be a  prior contract and the passengers shall be settled in  advance."                                         [Emphasis supplied]

Another case on the point is Nirmala JagdishChandra Kabra Vs.  Transport Commissioner & Ors., 1997 (9) SCC 227.  In this case a writ  was filed by an agent who had hired on contract the vehicle from the  carriage permit holder seeking an appropriate writ or direction declaring and  holding that the authorities had no legal right or power to either seize or  detain his vehicles solely on the allegation of collection of individual fare  from the passengers at the starting point of journey without picking up or  dropping  the passengers en route.  Petitioner was collecting individual fares  per passenger from one destination to another but was not using the vehicle  as a tourist vehicle hired to one group party.  Writ petition was dismissed by  the High Court.  Dismissing the appeal it was held by this Court:

"4.     It is contended by Shri Arun Jaitley, learned  Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the  petitioner has taken the vehicle on hire basis from  the owner of the vehicle who had the permit for  contract carriage of the passengers from one  destination to another. They are not collecting any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

individual fare en route by picking up or setting  down the passengers. They are picking up  passengers from one place and taking them for tour  to the other destination and, therefore, it is a  "contract carriage" within the meaning of Section  2(7) of the Act. It is not a stage carriage permit but  one of contract carriage and, therefore, the view  taken by the High Court is not correct in law. It is  true that if the holder of the vehicle obtains a  contract carriage, the owner may carry a passenger  or passengers for hire or reward on contract,  whether express or implied, for the use of such  vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers  mentioned therein and entered into by a person  with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle  or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a  fixed or an agreed rate or sum. In other words, the  very permit which grants the contract for carriage  of the passengers should contain the names of the  passengers to carry from one destination to another  destination without picking up or setting down en  route for hire or reward but when the holder of a  permit is another and permits them to carry the  passengers and makes the contract dehors those  mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the  permit as contract carriage and takes the  passengers from one destination to another, even  without picking up or setting down en route the  necessary consequence would be that the vehicle  has been or is being used as a stage carriage but  not a contract carriage. Under those circumstances,  obviously, the authority had rightly detained the  vehicle for the contravention of the conditions of  the permit. Therefore, the mandamus, as sought  for, was rightly refused by the high Court. The  learned counsel sought reliance on a judgment of  the Madras High Court in N. Krishnasami Chetty  v. Licensing Officer, Dy. Transport Commr. and  Secy RTA, AIR 1988 Mad. 274. The learned  Judges have not correctly appreciated the legal  position. Therefore, it is not correct in view of the  above law. It is accordingly overruled."

                       [Emphasis supplied]

The distinction between a stage carriage permit or a contract carriage  permit as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the two types  of permits are intended to meet different requirements.  The contract  carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or  individually for a group or a party for their transport to a  destination/destinations.  The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the  carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract.  There has to be only one  contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one  destination to another.  An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot  hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with  passengers having different purposes. If such a construction is put then there  would be no distinction between stage carriage or contract carriage permits.  If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few  of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus  of the route it would virtually be a Stage Carriage with corridor restriction.   Stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the general public  travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas  a contract carriage is meant for those who want to hire a public service  vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

another having the same purpose. High Court was not right in holding that  the travelling party as a whole need not have a common purpose for their  travel and it was sufficient if they had a common destination.  The view  taken runs counter to the law laid down by this Court in Brijendra Kumar  Chaudhari & Anr.  and Nirmala JagdishChandra Kabra  cases (supra)  and, therefore, bad in law. High Court was not right in declaring ultra vires  the Rules framed by the State Government providing that the party hiring the  contract carriage vehicle should, not only, have the intention of travelling to  the same destination but should also have the common purpose of travelling  as well.  In Rule 297-A (1)(c) ’common purpose’ has been defined to mean  the intention shared alike by all the persons travelling by the public service  vehicles to attend a meeting, gathering or function, social, religious, political  and the like, or to go to a pligrimage or visit to place of tourist’s interest or  both.  That it would not include the intention or the act of such persons  merely travelling from one common point to another.  This Rule framed by  the State Government does not run counter to the provisions of Section 2(7)  of the Act either in its intent or in its expression.  The rule is in consonance  with the intent of Section 2(7) of the Act.  The same has been framed to   fulfill the object with which Section 2(7) has been enacted.  Any other  interpretation would obliterate the distinction between a stage carriage  permit and a contract carriage permit.

High Court has struck down Rule 297-A(6)(f) as it provides for the  execution of a written contract between the hiring party and the agent while  hiring a public service vehicle.  According to the High Court the contract  can be in writing as well as an implied contract.  Under Section 2 (7) a  contract could be either express or implied and therefore it was not  mandatory to have a written contract only.  It could be an oral contract as  well. The Rule providing to have a written contract mandatorily goes beyond  the purview of the Act and therefore bad in law.  Contract could be implied  also as the definition of the contract carriage contemplates express as well as  an implied contract.   

Rule 297-A(6)(f) provides for drawing up of an agreement in writing,  providing therein the list of all the members of the hiring party giving  particulars of their names, father’s/husband’s name, age, full address, the  period for which the vehicle is engaged, places to be visited etc. and "the  nature of the common purpose of the journey".  This Court in Brijendra  Kumar Chaudhari & Anr.  (supra) while interpreting Section 2 (7) of the  Act has held that the contract entered between the parties shall be prior and  persons who are to be carried shall also be known prior to the journey.   Similarly, in Nirmala JagdishChandra Kabra  case (supra) it has been  held that the permit which grants the contract for carriage of the passengers  should contain the names of the passengers to be carried from one   destination to another without picking up or dropping the passengers en- route.  Contract may be express or implied as contemplated by Section 2 (7)  but the names of the passengers to be carried have to be settled prior to  undertaking the journey.  Rule 297-A (6)(f) does not go beyond the purview  of the Act.  Rather it carries out the purpose of the Act. Essentially  it  provides for settling the names of the passengers undertaking the journey  under an agreement for hiring a public service vehicle.  Passengers who are  to be carried are to be known prior to the journey as the definition of  contract carriage in Section 2 (7) includes the words "for the carriage of  passengers mentioned therein".  These words clearly show  that there must  be a prior contract and the passengers shall also be settled in advance. High  Court erred in striking down Rule 297-A (6)(f).

        For the reasons stated above both the Rules 297-A(1)(c ) and 297-A  (6) (f) are held to be intra vires of the Act and the findings recorded by the  High Court to the contrary are set aside.

       Coming to the last point wherein the High Court has held that the  rules framed by the Central Government under Section 88 (14) would alone  be applicable to all-India tourist permit and not the Rules framed by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

State Government, it was contended by the learned counsel for the  appellants that all-India tourist permits were basically contract carriages.   ’Tourist vehicle’ is defined under Section 2 (43) to mean a contract carriage.  The permits granted under Section 88 (9) enable these vehicles to be used in  more than one State but only for tourist purposes.  Apart from this difference  in the actual area of operation there is no other difference between a contract  carriage and an all-India tourist vehicle.  An all-India tourist vehicle has to  comply with the norms of a contract carriage.  The vehicle in any case has to  be restricted for the journey as a whole from one end to the other without  picking up any passenger in between.  The journey is one contract of a round  trip for the whole journey to and from with one common purpose.  On  checking it was found that all-India tourist vehicles were indulging in illicit  operation as stage carriages and not as contract carriages.

       We do not find any force in this submission.  Section 88 provides that  except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional  Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region,  unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport  Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall  not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport  Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority  concerned.  Sub-section (9) which provides for the grant of all-India tourist  permits, which reads as:

"9. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) but subject to any rules that may be  made by the Central Government under sub- section (14), any State Transport Authority may,  for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant  permits in respect of tourist vehicles valid for the  whole of India, or in such contiguous States not  being less than three in number including the State  in which the permit is issued as may be specified  in such permit in accordance with the choice  indicated in the application and the provisions of  sections 73,74,80,81,82,83,84,85,86 [clause (d) of  sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89] shall,  as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits."

It is clear from the reading of this provision that the State Transport  Authority has been empowered to grant all-India tourist permit for the  purpose of promoting tourism, notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) of Section 88 and subject to the Rules to be made by the Central  Government under sub-section 14 of Section 88, for the whole of India or  such contiguous States not less than three in number including the State in  which the permit is issued. Further the provisions of sections 73, 74, 80, 81,  82, 83, 84, 85, 86 clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89  are applicable as far as may be in relation to such permits.  Sub-section (11)  reads as under:

"(11) The following shall be conditions of every  permit granted under sub-section (9), namely: -

(i)     every motor vehicle in respect of which such  permit is granted shall conform to such  description, requirement regarding the  seating capacity, standards of comforts,  amenities and other matters, as the Central  Government may specify in this behalf; (ii)    every such motor vehicle shall be driven by  a person having such qualifications and  satisfying such conditions as may be  specified by the Central Government; and  (iii)   such other conditions as may be prescribed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

by the Central Government."

 Sub-section (11) provides that every motor vehicle to which all-India tourist  permit has been granted shall conform to the description, requirement of  seating capacity, standards of comforts, amenities and other matters, as  specified by the Central Government in this behalf.  Further, such vehicles  have to be driven by  persons having such qualifications and satisfying such  conditions as may be specified by the Central Government.  Other such  conditions have also to be prescribed by the Central Government.   

Sub-section 14 reads as under: "(14) (a) The Central Government may make rules  for carrying out the provisions of this section. (b) In particular, and without prejudice to the  generality of the foregoing power, such rules may  provide for all or any of the following matters,  namely:-

(i)     the authorisation fee payable of the issue of  a permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and  (12); (ii)    the fixation of the laden weight of the motor  vehicle; (iii)   the distinguishing particulars or marks to be  carried or exhibited in or on the motor  vehicle; (iv)    the colour or colours in which the motor  vehicle is to be painted; (v)     such other matters as the appropriate  authority shall consider in granting a  national permit.

Explanation.- In this section,

Xxx                     xxx"

 This sub-section empowers the Central Government to frame Rules for  carrying out the provisions of this Section as well as for providing for all or  any of the matters mentioned in sub-clause (b) of  this Section.  From the  conjoint reading of sub-sections (9), (11) and (14), referred to above, it is  abundantly clear that it is the Central Government alone which has been  authorised to frame the Rules as well as to prescribe the conditions for the  purposes of all-India tourist vehicles.  The power to make rules under  Sections 95 and 96 would not include the power to frame rules applicable to  all-India tourist permit which is exclusively vested in the Central  Government.  The  power  to  frame  rules  and  prescribe  conditions  for the  all-India tourist permit is exclusively vested in the Central Government and  the High Court was right in holding that the State Government would have  no  jurisdiction  to  either  frame  the  Rules  or  prescribe  conditions  for the  all-India tourist permits. Such permits would be exclusively governed by the  Rules framed by the Central Government or the conditions prescribed by the  Central Government.  The judgment of the High Court in so far as it has held  that it is the Rules framed by the Central Government only which would be  applicable to all-India tourist permits and not the Rules framed by the State  Government is upheld.

       For the reasons stated above, the appeals are accepted partly to the  extent indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.  No order as to costs.