http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: N. VENKATESWARA RAO & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.T.A & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH      C.A. NOS.  15713-15918/93 [@  SLP (C)  Nos.  23497-507, 25867, 26003, 26004, 26005-06, 26020, 26724-42, 26999-27104, 27127-139, 27188-191,  27206-222,  27235-39,  27395-419/95], C.A NOS.  15919-921/96  [@  SLP  (C)  NOS.  24395-97/96  (CC 5297/95)], C.A.  NOS. 15922-26/96  [@ SLP  (C) NOS.  208/96, 209/96, 24400-401/96 (CC 82/96 AND 90/96], C.A. NO. 16011/96 [@ SLP (C) NO. 24403/96 (CC 97/96)], C.A. NOS.15297-16010/96 [@ SLP  (C) NOS. 270-299/96, 27757-810/95], C.A. NOS. 16012- 623/96 [@  SLP (C)  NOS. 24405-07/96  (CC-160/96),  3595/96, 548-533/96, 24970-71/95,  Q.P. No. 259/95, C.A. NO. 16624/96 [@ SLP  No. 4928/96]  C.A. NOS. 16594-626/96 [@ SLP (C) NOS. 5877-5909/96 (CC  778/96)], C.A.  NOS. 16025-16593/96 [@ SLP (C) Nos.  5021-34/96, 6083,  6145-47, 6149-56/96, 6084-6143, 4951-79, 1220-25,  5538-47/96, 6160-90,  8412-31, 6277-6356, 7824-47, 8534-69,  8575-8605, 10049-083,  10408,  10445-454, 11029-033, 11803-810,  10849-851,  10852-884,  9853,  12027, 10828-840, 12028-037, 11890, 12213, 11875-884, 13043, 13185- 239/96,  14082-085,   14869,  14768-771,  14870-882,  14892, 16952/96, 22641 AND 22642/96]                          O R D E R      Permission to  file special leave petitions is granted. Delay condoned.      Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment of the  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in W.P. No. 6211/90 and batch, on December 21, 1991. All the appellants are owners of public carriers plying in the State of Andhra  Pradesh and  registered under  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  (hereinafter referred  to as  the "Act"]  and the Rules made  thereunder. Their  vehicles have 3 axles and are called Tauras  vehicles. It is their case that due to change in the  size of  the tyres  of the  front axles and the rear axle and  the ply  rating, the maximum self-laden weight got increased.  Therefore,   with  permission  of  the  Regional Transport Authority  they have been plying the vehicles with increased laden weight from August 1988. But after March 31, 1990, they  were interdicted  on the  ground that the weight was in  excess  of  maximum  permissible  laden  weight  and maximum safe  axle weight and as a consequence thereof their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

business of  transporting goods  has  been  interfered  with unnecessarily. As this was being done under the Notification dated June  8, 1989  issued by  the  Central  Government  in exercise of  its power  under Section  58 of  the  Act  they challenged  the   said  Notification   as  ultra  vires  the provisions of the Act. After the judgment of the High Court, the Rules  came to be amended in 1994. When the appeals were preferred before this Court, by order dated February 1, 1996 this Court  pointed out  that the Central Government have to carry out  the amendment to the Rules and the Schedule so as to bring  them in  conformity with  the Amendment  Act 54 of 1994. Time,  when sought  for to do the needful, was granted to  the   Government  of   India.  As   a  result,  now  the notification has  been issued on October 18, 1996 exercising the power  under Section 58 (1) of the Act and also appended explanatory note to the said notification.      S/Shri Sudhir  Chandra, Rajiv  Dhawan, Smt. Amareswari, learned senior  counsel and  Shri L.N.  Rao, learned counsel for the  appellants, contend that the notification issued by the Government,  in particular the words "whichever is less" after the  end of the three clauses, is in abdication of the power given  to the  Central Government  under Section 58(1) which empowers  the  Central  Government  to  prescribe  the maximum gross  vehicle weight  and  the  maximum  safe  axle weight by  way of  an appropriate Notification. The impugned Notification  after  referring  to  the  three  indices  has provided that  the maximum  gross  vehicle  weight  and  the maximum safe  axle  weight  shall  be  out  of  these  three indicated weights,  whichever is  less.  By  providing  like that, it  has, instead  of fixing  such weight  itself,  has either abdicated  or delegated  the power  in favour  of the manufacturer. The  Notification, as it is, clearly indicates that the  Central Government  has not  exercised  its  power properly but has left determination of maximum gross vehicle weight  and   the  maximum   safe   axle   weight   to   the manufacturers. It was, therefore, submitted that exercise of the power  is thus not consistent with the provisions of the Act. Shri  Rajiv  Dhawan  has  further  contended  that  the Registering Authority  has been  given free-hand  either  to register or  refuse to register the vehicles which is not in conformity with the Schedule and that, therefore, the action would always  an impediment  to have the vehicle registered. Thereby, the  Central Government have obviated the statutory power given under the Act.      Shri P.P.  Malhotra, learned  senior  counsel  for  the Union of  India, on the other hand, contends that Section 58 should be  read with  the Rules.  Chapter  7  of  the  Rules prescribed various circumstances enumerated in the matter of construction,  equipment   and  maintenance   of  the  motor vehicles. After  taking into  consideration all the relevant factors, namely,  the maximum  axle  weight,  size  and  ply rating of  the tyres  and all  other relevant  factors,  the manufacturers  as   well  as  the  testing  authorities  are required  to   ensure  that  the  Act  and  the  Rules  made thereunder are  strictly complied  with. The notification is only to  ensure such  a  compliance.  Thereby,  the  Central Government have  not abdicated the power given under Section 58 of  the Act  to the  manufactures nor  to the Registering Authority as  its delegatee.  Shri Raghuvir,  learned senior counsel appearing  for the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  has further argued that the indicia provided, namely, ‘whichever is less’ in the notification would manifests the object that the  roadworthiness  requires  to  be  considered  when  the vehicle is  registered; the  entries in  the register  would indicate the  maximum vehicle  weight, axle  weight and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

‘tyre weight’  which would  approximately be  less than  the maximum prescribed  so that the load weight of the goods and vehicle weight  remain constant  the roadworthiness  of  the vehicle would be continued and the safety of the carriage of goods would  also be  ensured. If  such  a  construction  is adopted, the  Government of  India cannot  be said  to  have abdicated their power given under Section 58 of the Act.      In view  of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel on either side, the question is whether the impugned notification dated  October 18,  1996 is  in conformity with the provision  of the  Act? Section  2(3) of the Act defines "axle weight"  to mean, in relation to an axle of a vehicle, the total  weight transmitted by the several wheels attached to that  axle to  the surface  on which  the vehicle  rests. Section 2  (15) defines  "gross vehicle  weight" to mean, in respect of  any vehicle  the total weight of the vehicle and load certified  and registered  by the Registering Authority as permissible  for that  vehicle. Section  2  (36)  defines "registered axle  weight" to mean, in respect of the axle of any vehicle, the axle weight certified and registered by the Registering Authority for that axle. "Registering Authority" has been  defined under  Section 2(37)  to mean an authority empowered to register motor vehicles under Chapter IV. Section  109   in  Chapter   VII  of   the  Act  deals  with construction,  equipment   and  maintenance   of  the  motor vehicles. It reads as under:      "(1) Every  motor vehicle  shall be      so construed  and so  maintained as      to  be   at  all  times  under  the      effective  control  of  the  person      driving the vehicle.      (2) Every motor vehicle shall be so      constructed as  to have  right hand      steering  control   unless  it   is      equipped  with   a  mechanical   of      electrical signaling  device  of  a      prescribed nature."      The Central  Government have  been  given  power  under Section 110  to  make  rules  regulating  the  construction, equipment and  maintenance of the motor vehicles. Clause (b) of Section  110(1) provides  that the  size, nature, maximum retail price  and condition  of  tyres  including  embossing thereon of date and year of manufacture and the maximum load carrying  capacity   are  required   to  be  prescribed.  In accordance therewith, the Rules have been made. Chapter V of the Rules  deal with construction, equipment and maintenance of the  motor vehicles. Rule 92 gives a general prescription that "No  person shall  use or  cause or allow to be used in any public  place any  motor vehicle  which does  not comply with the  provisions of this Chapter." Rule 93 gives overall dimensions of  the motor vehicles and Rule 94 prescribes the conditions of  the tyres.  Rule 95  prescribes the size, ply rating of  tyres as  per the  Schedule  gives  therein,  the details to  which we  will be  dealt with  at a later stage. Suffice it to state that Rule 95 prescribes the sizes of the tyres of  motor vehicles  specified in  the column  and  the table prescribes  the maximum weight permitted to be carried by such  tyres specified in the corresponding column 3. Rule 126 provides  for the prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to  test after the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993 have come into force. It reads as under:      "126.  Prototype   of  every  motor      vehicle to  be subject to test - On      and from  the date  of commencement      of    Central     Motor    Vehicles

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

    (Amendment)  Rules,   1993,   every      manufacturer  of   motor   vehicles      other  than   trailers  and   semi-      trailers shall submit the prototype      of the  vehicle to  be manufactured      by him  for  test  by  the  vehicle      Research      and       Development      Establishment of  the  Ministry  of      Defence of the Government of Indian      or Automotive  Research Association      of  India,  Pune,  or  the  Central      Machinery  Testing   and   Training      Institute,  Budni   (MP),  or   the      Indian  Institute   of   Petroleum,      Dehradun, and  such other  agencies      as may  be specified by the Central      Government    for     granting    a      certificate by  that agency  as  to      the compliance of provisions of the      Act and these rules."      Rule  126-A   prescribes  that   the  testing  agencies referred to  in Rule  126, shall,  in  accordance  with  the procedure laid  down by the Central Government, also conduct tests on  vehicles drawn  from the  production line  of  the manufacturer to verify whether these vehicles conform to the provisions of  Rule 115  of the  Rules. Rule  115 speaks  of emissions of smoke, vapour, etc. from motor vehicle and also other conditions,  the details of which are not material for the purpose of these cases. Registration of motor vehicle is dealt with  under Rule  47 read with Form 20 and Rule 47 (a) and (b)  in conformity with Form 21 and Rule 47 (g), 115(b), 124, 126-A  and 127,  as specified  in Form  27. In Form 20, column 25  prescribes specification  of gross vehicle weight as specified  by the  manufacturer and  the same  has to  be registered in  the form.  Column 26  specifies maximum  axle weight etc.,  the details  of which  have been  mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). Column 30 prescribes number, description and size of tyres on each axle. Column 31 prescribes maximum axle weight in respect of each axle. Similarly in Form 21 in clauses (a)  to (d)  of column  11 maximum  axle weight  and number and  description  of  tyres  (in  case  of  transport vehicle), front axle, rear axle, any other axle, tandem axle have been  specified.  Column  13  specifies  gross  vehicle weight. Thus it could be seen that all the provisions of the Act and  the Rules  specify the  maximum weight  of axle and tyres and  the required  weightage to  be mentioned  in  the Certificate  of   Registration  in   Form  20,   21  and  22 conformably to  Rule  47.  Equal  are  the  provisions  with respect to the tyres which need no reiteration.      In this behalf, the power of the Central Government has been crystallized in Section 58 of the Act. Section 58 reads as under:      "58. Special  provisions in  regard      to transport  vehicles. -  (1)  The      Central  Government   may,   having      regard to  the number,  nature  and      size of  the tyres  attached to the      wheels  of   a  transport  vehicle,      (other than  a motor  cab), and its      make and  model and  other relevant      considerations, by  notification in      the Official  Gazette, specify,  in      relation to  each make and model of      a transport  vehicle,  the  maximum      [gross  vehicle]   weight  of  such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    vehicle and  the maximum  safe axle      weight  of   each  axle   of   such      vehicle.      (2) A  registering authority,  when      registering  a  transport  vehicle,      other than  a motor cab shall enter      in the  record of  registration and      shall also enter in the certificate      of registration  of the vehicle the      following particulars, namely:-      (a)  the   unladen  weight  of  the      vehicle;      (b) the  number, nature and size of      the tyres attached to each wheel;      (c) the gross vehicle weight of the      vehicle  and  the  registered  axle      weights pertaining  to the  several      axle thereof; and      (d)  if  the  vehicle  is  used  or      adapted to be used for the carriage      of passengers solely or in addition      to goods,  the number of passengers      for whom accommodation is provided,      and the  owner of the vehicle shall      have the same particulars exhibited      in the  prescribed  manner  on  the      vehicle.      (3) There  shall not  be entered in      the certificate  of registration of      any such  vehicle any gross vehicle      weight on  a registered axle weight      of any  of the  axle different from      that specified  in the notification      under sub-section  (1) in  relation      to  the  make  and  model  of  such      vehicle and  to the  number, nature      and size  of the  tyres attached to      its wheels:      (4)   When   by   reason   of   any      alteration   in    such    vehicle,      including  an   alteration  in  the      number,  nature   or  size  of  its      tyres, the  gross vehicle weight of      the vehicle  or the registered axle      weight  of  any  of  its  axles  no      longer accords  with the provisions      of sub-section  (3), the provisions      of Section  52 shall  apply and the      registering authority  shall  enter      in the  certificate of registration      of the  vehicle revised  registered      weights which  accord with the said      sub-section."      A reading  thereof  would  clearly  indicate  that  the Central Government  may, having regard to the number, nature and size  of the tyres attached to the wheels of a transport vehicle  and   its  make   and  model   and  other  relevant considerations, by  notification in  the  Official  Gazette, specify, in  relation to  each make and model of a transport vehicle, the  maximum gross  vehicle weight  of such vehicle and the  maximum safe  axle weight  of  each  axle  of  such vehicle.  When   the  Registering   Authority  registers   a transport  vehicle   it  should   enter  in  the  record  of registration  and   also  enter   in  the   certificate   of registration of  the vehicle,  the  unladen  weight  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

vehicle the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to each wheel;  the maximum gross vehicle weight of the vehicle and the  registered axle  weights pertaining  to the vehicle axles thereof.  When by  reason of  any alteration  in  such vehicle including the alteration in the number, nature, size of tyres,  the gross  vehicle weight  of the  vehicle or the registered axle weight of any of its axles no longer accords with the  provisions of  sub-section (3),  the provisions of Section 52  shall apply and the Registering Authority has no enter in  the certificate  of registration  of the  vehicle, revised registered weights which should accord with the said sub-section. The  scheme of  the Act  and  the  Rules  would provide an  in built  procedure under  the Act  to  maintain construction, equipment and maintenance of the motor vehicle as regards  its maximum  gross vehicle  weight, maximum safe axle weight,  the nature and size of the tyres fitted to the vehicle and  also the  maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle as entered in the certificate of registration or revised, it there occurred change in the weight.      The question,  therefore, is  whether the Government in exercising its  power under  Section 58(1)  of the  Act  has abdicated its  power  in  favour  of  the  manufacturers  as contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties?  On consideration of  the scheme  of the  Act and the purpose it seeks to serve, namely, roadworthiness and the safety of the vehicle and  also the safety of the transport, we think that the Government has not abdicated its power in exercising its power under  section 58(1)  of the  Act by  issuance of  the notification dated  October 18, 1996. It is seen that in the notification the  Government specified  that in  relation to the transport  vehicles (other  than motor  cabs) of various categories detailed  in  the  Schedule,  the  maximum  gross vehicles weight  and the  maximum safe  axle weight  of each axle of  such vehicle  shall, having  regard  to  the  size, nature and  number  of  the  tyres  of  the  maximum  weight permitted to be carried by the tyres as specified in Rule 95 of the Rules which reads as under:      "(1) Vehicle  manufacturers  rating      of the  gross  vehicle  weight  and      axle weight  respectively for  each      make and model as duly certified by      the testing agencies for compliance      of rule  126 of  the Central  Motor      Vehicles Rules, 1989, or      (ii)  the   maximum  gross  vehicle      weight and  the maximum  safe  axle      weight of each vehicle respectively      as specified  in the Schedule below      for the relevant category, or      (iii) the maximum load permitted to      be  carried   by  the   tire(s)  as      specified in  the rule  95  of  the      Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,      for the  size  and  number  of  the      tyres fitted  on the axle(s) of the      relevant make  and model, whichever      is less:      Provided  that  the  maximum  gross      vehicle weight  in respect  of  all      such transport  vehicles, including      multi-axle vehicles  shall  not  be      more than  the sum total of all the      maximum  safe   axle   weight   put      together     subject     to     the      restrictions,  if   any,   on   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    maximum gross  vehicle weight given      in the said Schedule."      It is  seen that  Schedule has  been attached  to  this notification  in   which  they   have  mentioned  the  rigid vehicles, semi-articulated  vehicles as  enumerated therein, the details  of which  are redundant  to be extracted in the judgment, but  they become  part of the judgment. It is true that clause  (1) by itself indicates and gives an impression that the  Central Government had abdicated its discretion in favour of  the manufacturer,  of rating  the  gross  vehicle weight and  the axle  weight respectively.  But it  must  be understood in the light of the explanatory note added by the Government which reads as under:      "The  notification   specifies  the      maximum Gross  Vehicle  Weight  and      maximum  Safety   Axle  Weight  for      various  categories   of  transport      vehicles. It  is  not  possible  to      specify  this  for  each  make  and      model because  of  the  very  large      number of  models  manufactured  by      different  manufacturers.   Further      with   the    rapid   technological      advancements  in   the   automobile      industry new models are being added      regularly   and   there   will   be      practical difficulties  and days in      the notification  of  these  models      ..........their              market      introduction. However,  this aspect      has  been  taken  care  of  by  the      requirement of  certification to be      issued  by  the  nominated  testing      agencies under  CMVR for  each make      and  model  of  transport  vehicles      Further  the   schedule   in   this      notification  covers   the  various      categories of  vehicles,  currently      manufactured  in  the  country  and      thus includes  each make  and model      of transport vehicle.      The notification  ensures that  the      maximum Gross  Vehicle  Weight  and      the maximum  safe axle  weight  for      registration are in accordance with      the stipulation  of the  Government      from the point of view of roads and      bridges. Further,  it ensures  that      the maximum weights permitted to be      carried by the tire are as per rule      95 CMVR.  Additionally  it  ensures      that  the   vehicle  manufacturers’      ratings are  never exceeded as this      is fundamental  for the  safety and      satisfactory   operation   of   the      transport vehicle.      The schedule  in  the  notification      specifies the maximum gross vehicle      weight and  safe axle  weight. Tyre      sizes are  not  recommended  to  be      included in  this schedule  because      manufacturers have  to  choose  the      appropriate  size   and  number  of      tyres from design considerations to      meet various  requirements such  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

    durability, ground  clearance, ride      and handling, braking and steering,      road conditions, standardisation of      tyres on all the axles etc.      A reading  of it  would  indicate  that  due  to  rapid technology and  change in  the manufacture of the automobile vehicle by  the industry, several new models are being added regularly; it is practically difficult for the Government to specify on  day-to-day the  maximum vehicle  weight  or  the maximum   axle   weight   which   would   cause   delay   in implementation thereof.  Therefore, the  Government,  having regard to  the changing  manufacturing pattern  and changing situation, have  decided that the manufacturer specifies the maximum  gross  vehicle  weight  and  the  axle  weight.  It necessarily requires  to be  decided by the testing agencies specified in Rule 126 and they should act in conformity with the provisions  of the  Act and the Rules and should certify accordingly. When  they so  do, it  in effect  amounts to  a direction by  the Central  Government to  the authorities to comply with  the provisions  of  the  Act.  Thereby,  before registration of  the vehicle,  after the construction of the motor vehicle  with equipment  as mentioned  in the  Act the Registering Authority shall be required to verify whether it is in  conformity with  the provisions of the Act, Rules and the  notification.   One  that  is  done,  the  question  of discrimination  or   arbitrariness  on   the  part   of  the Registering Authority  does not  arise. Rule  126-A  of  the Rules came  into force  with effect  from December 30, 1993. Therefore, any  vehicle registered  prior to  the said  date should conform  with the  specifications mentioned  in  item (ii) of  the notification read with the Schedule attached to Rule 95  of the Rules. Subsequent thereto, they all required to comply with the law as enumerated hereinbefore.      Next contention is as to para (ii) of the notification. There is  no quarrel  across the  Bar as regards clause (ii) thereof because  it specified  maximum gross  vehicle weight and  the   maximum  safe   axle  weight   of  each   vehicle respectively as  specified in  the Schedule  to the relevant categories enumerated hereinbefore. A serious contention was raised with regard to clause (iii) of the notification which says that  the maximum  load permitted  to be carried by the tyre(s) as  specified in  Rule 95 for the size and number of the tyres  fitted on  the axle(s)  of the  relevant make and model would  be "whichever  is less"  among  all  the  three clauses.  In   this  behalf   it  is   contended  that  some manufacturers have  given the  maximum vehicle  weight of 22 tonnes while  Schedule I prescribes 25 tonnes as the maximum gross vehicle  weight in  respect of  rigid vehicle having 3 axle, two tyres on front axle and eight tyres on rear tandem axle and the maximum safe axle weight is six tonnes on front axle and  19 tones  on rear  tandem axle.  This would create incompatibility  for  non-registration  by  the  registering authorities and, therefore, it is not in conformity with the Act. We  find no  force in  the contention.  It is seen that each manufacturer  is required  to conform to the provisions of the  Act, Rules  and the  specifications mentioned by the Government in  that behalf.  The manufacturers send them for testing to  the appropriate  authority specified in Rule 126 of the  Rules. When so tested what is specified in the Rules is the  maximum; but  it does  not mean that it should be in excess of  it. It  may be  less. It  is seen  that the Rules indicate the minimum of weightage. Take for instance, if the maximum axle  weight is 100 tones and weightage of the tyres fitted to  it is  106 tones, it does not mean that the owner has the right to fit his tyres in excess of the maximum safe

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

axle weight  given and  registered in  the vehicle. In other words, in  an appropriate  case the maximum safe axle weight and the maximum vehicle weight should always be conformable; though in  respect of  tyres fitted  into the  vehicles, the weight is  variable. It  should  always  be  less  than  the maximum of the safe axle weight mentioned in the certificate of registration. The words "whichever is less" require to be understood in  that sense.  Note II  of Rule  95  should  be understood in  this perspective.  If such  a construction is adopted, in  fairness, Shri  Sudhir Chandra,  learned senior counsel, has  stated that there may not be any impediment in the enforcement  of the provisions of the Act. We agree with the learned  counsel in  that behalf.  The maximum safe axle weight would  always be the criteria and the maximum vehicle weight should  normally be  in conformity with the safe axle weight so that the roadworthiness of the vehicle, the safety of the  vehicle and  also the  safety of the carriage of the goods would  always remains  without  creating  any  traffic hazards. The  driver would carry the good without any hiatus in the  carriage of  the goods.  Thus we  consider that  the Government have  not abdicated  its controlling  power under section 58(1) of the Act.      Shri Rajiv  Dhawan, learned  senior counsel, has placed reliance on  a passage  of Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade (Seventh Edition) at page 358 which reads thus:      "Closely akin  to  delegation,  and      scarcely distinguishable from it in      some cases,  is any  arrangement by      which a  power conferred  upon  the      authority is in substance exercised      by another.  The  proper  authority      may share  its power  with some one      else, or may allow some one else to      dictate to  it by  declining to act      without   their   consent   or   by      submitting  to   their  wishes   or      instructions. The  effect  then  is      that the  discretion  conferred  by      Parliament is  exercised, at  least      in part,  by the  wrong  authority,      and the resulting decision is ultra      vires and  void. So  strict are the      courts in  applying this  principle      that     they      condemn     some      administrative  arrangements  which      must seem  quite natural and proper      to those  who make  them.  In  this      class might be included the case of      the  cinema   licensing   authority      which, by  requiring  films  to  be      approved by  the British  Board  of      Film  Censors,  was  held  to  have      surrendered its  power  of  control      and also  the case  of  the  Police      Complaints Board, which acted as if      it were  bound by a decision of the      Director  of   Public  Prosecutions      when only required to ‘have regard’      to  it.   This  doctrine  has  been      applied   to    voting   by   local      councillors.      Ministers  and   their  departments      have several  times fallen  foul of      the same  rule, no doubt equally to      their  surprise.  The  Minister  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    Housing and  Local Government  made      it  a   rule  to   refuse  planning      permissions for  gravel working  on      top-class     agricultural     land      whenever   the    application   was      opposed   by    the   Minister   of      Agriculture. The  court  held  that      this was  to put the decisive power      into  the   hands  of   the   wrong      minister and  that  a  decision  so      taken must  be  quashed.  Similarly      the     court     invalidated     a      reinstatement  order   made   under      wartime  labour  regulations  by  a      national service  officer, who  was      empowered to  direct  reinstatement      of    workers     dismissed     for      misconduct.  For  the  officer  was      acting under  directions  from  the      minister,   whereas    he   was   a      statutory  authority   in  his  own      right and should have exercised his      personal discretion."      It is  seen from  the above  passage  that  the  proper authority who  has been empowered to exercise the power, has abdicated its power in its exercise of the discretion vested by the  Parliament in its administrative actions. The author has stated  that the  Parliament having given the discretion to the  authorities, they  cannot abdicate  its power to the officers to  exercise that power. Similar is the case of the British Censor  Board etc.  It is seen that the said passage is inapplicable  to  the  facts  of  this  case.  As  stated earlier, the  Act itself  regulates the  manner in which the vehicles  are   to  be   constructed,  equipped  fitted  and maintained and  various indicia have been prescribed in that behalf. The  manufacturer is  required  to  conform  to  the specifications. As  stated earlier,  Rule 95  of  the  Rules specifies the  size of  the  tyres  of  the  motor  vehicles specified in  Column 1  of the Schedule. Rating is specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the Schedule and the maximum  weight permitted to be carried by such tyres is specified in  column 3.  The relevant  columns specify  each type of tyres.      It is  true that  Note (ii)  of the  notification which gives the  above maximum  weightage in  respect of  tyres of transport vehicle  goods, shall be applicable subject to the conditions that  the axle  load does  not exceed  6% of  the permitted limit.  They apply  in relation  to the registered axle weight  recorded in  the certificate of registration of the vehicle.  As stated  earlier, this  is only  to indicate that the  axle load should not exceed 6% or it should always be above  the safe  axle load  specified in  the  Rules.  As stated earlier,  the safe  axle load  would  always  be  the determining factor  since roadworthiness  and  safety  would hinge upon  the axle  load vis-a-vis the tyres fitted to the axles as specified in the Act.      This it  could be seen that the Central Government have not  abdicated   their  power  of  control  and  prescribing specification under  Section 58  of the  Act  nor  it  is  a delegation of  the manufacturer.  Therefore, we  do not find any illegality  in  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court warranting interference.      The appeals  and  the  writ  petition  are  accordingly dismissed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11