Supreme Court of India
ISHWAR SINGH BAGGA & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN ETC.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 242
- Decided
- 19 November 1986
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
The phrase "other person" in Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act refers only to officers of the Government, so the notification empowering officers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to exercise those powers is invalid.
Summary
The petitioners, holders of contract carriage permits, challenged a 1975 Rajasthan Government notification that authorised officers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Deputy General Manager (Traffic), Assistant Depot Managers and Traffic Inspectors) to exercise the powers under Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to seize and detain vehicles on notified routes. They argued that the notification violated Article 19(1)(g) and that the phrase "other person" in Section 129A could not include corporation officers. The Supreme Court examined the statutory language, the legislative intent behind Sections 129A and 133A, and the nature of the corporation as a statutory body, concluding that "other person" must refer only to government officers. Consequently, the notification was held invalid and set aside. The Court also noted that the corporation is not automatically entitled to compensation under Section 357 of the CrPC, leaving that question for future determination. The writ petitions and civil appeals were allowed, quashing the notification.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Rajasthan Government notification under Section 129A authorising corporation officers to exercise seizure powers.
- Whether the expression "other person" in Section 129A includes officers of a statutory corporation.
- Whether the appointment of corporation officers under the notification violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Whether the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is entitled to compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 357
- Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(g)
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 129, s. 129A, s. 133A, s. 22, s. 42, s. 68B, s. 68C, s. 68D
- Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActSection 129Aother personstatutory corporationArticle 19(1)(g)seizure of vehiclescompensation under CrPCroad transport corporationnotification validity
Judgment
ISHW AR SINGH BAGGA & ORS. ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN ETC. ~-- -
NOVEMBER 19, 1986
B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Section 129A-Validity of the Notification
No. 7-1(6) H/unit X-75 Home (Courts x) Department Government of
....
Rajasthan, empowering Deputy General Manager (Traffic), Assistant Depot
Managers and Traffic Inspectors in addition to the Police to exercise the
powers under section 129A of the Act in respect of all stage carriages and
c contract carriages on the Notified routes under section 68-D(3)-Wor</s and 1·
phrases, 'other Person: meaning of-Whether includes officers of the
Corporation.
~
The State of Rajastruin issued a Notification No. 7.1(6)H/Unit-x-75
D Home (Court x) dated 15.7.1975,undjr section 129A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 empowering certain offiCfl'.S of the Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation to exercise in respect of all stage carriages and contract carriages
on the Notified Routes under section 68-0(3) of the Act, the powers that can
be exercised under section 129A of the Act by the police officers who are
empowered in that behalf.
E
The writ petitioners and the appellants are holders of contract carriage
permits carrying on business ii) the State of Rajasthan and other adjoining
y
States. Under the said permits they are entitled to run tlie contract carriages
throughout Rajasthan, except on the notified routes. Some of them also own
i;notor vehicles which are covered by permits issued under section 63(7) of the
F Act having the privilege of carrying on passengers on contract throughout
India.
:-.:.
\
The petitioners/appellants contended (i) that the appointment of the
officers of the Corporation who are their rivals in motor transport business, as ~-
officers entitled to exercise powers .conferred under section 129A of the Act
G was violative of Article 19(1 Xg) of the Constitution; and (ii) that the said
officers who are very much interested in seeing that the Corporation earns
much profit, have been overzealous in exercising their powers conferred on
them and by seizing and detaining the motor vehicles belonging to the
petitioners/ appellants have acted contrary to law.
~-
H Allowing the petitions and appeals, the Court,
300
l.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 301
HELD: 1.1 The Deputy General Manager (Traffic), the Assistant A
Depot Managers and the Traffic Inspectors of the Corporation could not have
been authorised by the State Government to discharge the powers under
section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. [315 E]
1.2 Ordinarily, whenever a statute empowers the State Government to
appoint persons to admiitister any of the provisions of the statute, the persons B
who may be appointed by the State Government under such provision can
only be persons appointed in connection with the affairs of the State. In other
words they should be employees or officers of the State Government, who are
subject to the administrative and disciplinary control of the State Government
directly.
c
13 The expression 'other person' mentioned in section 129A of the Act
which has to be read ejusdem generis with the words 'any police officer' which
precede that expression in section 129 A of the Act can only refer to an officer
of the Government and not to any officer or employee of any statutory
corporation or to any other private person. [314 G]
D
l A A reading of section 129A and section 133A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939 together shows that the 'other person'referred to in section 129A of
the Act, who may be empowered to discharge the powers under that section
can only mean an officer of the Government, such as the Motor Vehicles
Officer appointed under section 133A of the Act or of any other department. It
could never have been the intention of the Central Legislature, while enacting E
section 129A and section l33A of the Act that the powers exercisable under
section 129A of the Act could be conferred on persons who were not officers of
the Government. If the Central Legislat~re intended that such powers could be
entrusted to private persons or employees of any statutory Corporation the
section would have expressly provided in that regard. [313 H-314 BJ ~
r
1.5 Under the Rajasthan State Road established under section 3 of the
Road Transport Corporation Act LXIV of 1950, the officers and servants of
the Corporation are not holders of civil posts under the State Government, so
as to fall within the terrn 'other persons'. Further, there is no provision in ihe
Corporations Act, authorising the Corporation to permit any of its officers to
exercise the powers un,der Section 129 A of the Motor Vehicles Act or to spend G
money on the safe custody of the vehicles which are seized and detained under
section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act. [310 C-D, 311 H-312 A]
From the reading of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and of the
Corporations Act it is evident that the Corporation is just another operator of H
motor vehicles which is entitled to run motor vehicles in accordance with law
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C. R.
A after obtaining permits. When the Corporation applies for permits under
·;..-· .
Chapter IV of the Act it has to compete with other applicants to obtain permits
in accordance with the provisions of that Chapter. When an approved scheme
is brought into operation under Chapter IV-A of the Act it is no doubt entitled
to get permits to the exclusion, complete or partial of other operators. It is also
true that' when the approved scheme provides that other operators are
B excluded completely or partially no private operator can operate his motor
vehicles along the notified route or in the notified area in question except in .
accordance with the approved scheme. Barring what is stated above and some
other liabilities from which the Corporation is expressly exempted under the
Act, the Corporation is subject to all the obligations and responsibilities which
are imposed on other private operators by the Act. It is subject to the powers of
C supervision and control of the transport authorities under the Act and to the
rules governing the proper maintenance of transport vehicles. The
Corporation is also subject to the jurisdiction of the Motor Veh1cles
Department which is established under section 133-A of the Act and its
vehicles are liable to be inspected and checked liy the officers appointed under
that section in the interests of the travelling public. It is thus clear that the
D Corporation is one of the many operators of the motor vehicles in the State
though the fleet of the motor vehicles owned by it and the magnitude of the
operations carried on by it may be very large. [312 C-F]
1.6 Further every permit,issued·under Chapter IV of the Act contains a
E number of conditions which are specified therein. The contravention of either
section 22 or section 42(1) of the Act or any of the conditions mentioned in the
permit would entitle and.officer empowered under section 129A of the Act to
seize and detain the vehicle in question and also to provide for the temporary
safe custody. A report or complaint, as the case may be, also may be filed by
him before the Magistrate for taking action againstthe owner of the vehicle for
F violation of any of the provisions of the Act referred to above. H is thus seen
that the powers are of a drastic nature and have the effect of depriving the
owner of a motor vehicle of his property, which sometimes may be of the value
of Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs. They also have the effect of depriving the passengers who
.. .;te traveliing in that vehicle of a transport service right in the middle of a route
and may expose them to 'hunger and thirst'. Since the Corporation is only
..0 .' entitled to a preference in the grant of permits as respects the Notified routes or
: ·in any Notified _area. The police officers who are empowered to exercise
cert.rln powers under the Motor Vehides Act should exercise these powers in
respect of motor vehicles owned by the private operators and also in respect of
the motor vehiCles owned by the State Road Transport Corporation. Such a
power cannot be granted to the officers of the Corporation by resorting to the
H term 'other person' in the Motor Vehicles Act. [309 F-310 A, 312 G, 311 HJ
1.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 303
Having regard to the nature of the power, the expression 'other person' A
in section 129 also will have to be interpreted as meaning any _other person
appointed in connection with the affairs of the ·state Government and not any
private person or officer of a Corporation. [315 C]
Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1985] 3
S.C.C. 711, followed. 8
" Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh v. Sardar Ali Bus Owner,
[1983] S.C.R. 729, referred to.
OBSERVATION:
~- 1. The police officers and the officers of the M.otor Vehicles Department
are expected to discharge their duties properly and diligently and if they c
discharge their duties in accordance with law with the amount of diligence
which is required of them, there should no difficulty in plugging any kind of
unauthorised running of stage carriage or contract carriages on the notified
routes. Negligence on the part of the Transport Authorities, the Motor
Vehicles Department and the police officers In· exercising their powers of
supervision, inspection and control in respect of the motor vehicles of the . D
Corporation leads to gra~e public suffering and sometimes to disasters. They
should. not take it for granted that the motor vehicles of the Corporation do
not need to be checked or inspected only because it is established by the State
Government. Omission on their part in discharging these duties amounts to
dereliction of public duty. [315 G-H, 312 G.-H]
E
2. Prima facie, the Corporation is not entitled to be paid compensation
under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It can be paid such
compensation only when it is open to the Corporation to file a suit and recover
damages in law for such unauthorised operation of stage carriages. Section
357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for payment of
compensation out of the fine to certain persons. The orders directing payment F
· of compensation to the Corporation may have been passed under clause (b) of
that section which provides that the fine recovered may be applied in the
payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the
offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by
such person in a Civil Court. Magistrates should hereafter pass such orders
only after hearing all the parties. [316 D-F] G
ORIGINAL/ APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 237
of 1986 Etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 423536 & 4243/86 H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C. R.
A R.B. Datar, Mrs. Binu Tamta, Mrs. Rani Chhabra and B.S. Chauhan,
for the Petitioners/ Appellants.
L.M. Singhvi, T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, S.K. Jain, A.M. Singhvi,
. C. Mukhopadhyay, B.D. Sharma and S. Atreya for the Respondents.
B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioners in the Writ'Petitions and
appellants in the Civil Appeals are holders of contract carriage permits issued
under the provisions of the Mo\or Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') carrying on business in the State of Rajas than and other adjoining
c States. Under the said permits they are entitled to run the contract carriages
throughout Rajasthan except on the notified routes. Some of them also own
motor vehicles which are covered by permits issued under section 63(7) of the
Act having the privilege of carrying passengers on contract throughout India.
In these Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals they have questioned the validity of
the Notification dated 15.7.1975 issued by the State of Rajasthan under
D section 129-A of the Act empowering certain officers of the Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') to
exercise in respect of all stage carriages and contract carriages on the notified
routes under section 68-0(3) of the Act the power that can be exercised
under section 129-A of the Act by police officers who are empowered in
that behalf. The Notification reads as follows:
E l
"RAJASTHAN RAJPATRA"
Dated 7.8.1975
HOME (Cr. X) DEPARTMENT
F NOTIFICATION
Jaipur, July 15, 1975
0.0. 420. In exercise of the power conferred by section
129-"A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Centrd Act IV of 1939)
G the State Government hereby further authorises the following
persons to exercise the powers and to take or cause to be taken
all the proper steps within their respective jurisdictions under
the said scheme in respect of all the stage carriages and contract
carriages plying on or in any notified route or in any" notified
area under-section 68-D(3) of the said Act or in any portion
H
thereof, namely:
J.S. llAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 305
( A
'
S.No. Persons authorised Jurisdiction
I. Deputy General I. All Rajasthan ·
Manager (Traffic)
2. Assistant Depot 2. Within the jurisdiction
Managers of their respective B
( . depot.
3. Traffic Inspectors 3. Within the jurisdiction
of their respective
routes
-~ No. F,1(6)H/Unit-X-75 c
by order of Governor
Sd/- Raj Singh
Commissioner for Home/ Secy.
to the Government
D
The petitioners/ appellants contend that the officers of the Corporation
named in the Notification who are very much interested in seeing that.the
Corporation earns ·much profit have been over-zealous in exercising ithe
powers conferred on them under section 129-A of the Act and seizing ~nd
detaining the motor vehides belonging to the petitioners/ appellants contrary
to law. The principal contention urged by the petitioners/appellants is that it E
was not open to the State Government to appoint persons who are not officers
of the Government as persons who could exercise the powers of seizure ~nd
detention of property of citizens under section 129-A of the Act. Relying on
the Judgment ·of this Co~rt in Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Haryana and Others, [1985] 3 S.C.C. 711, it is contended that the appointment
of the officers of the Corporation who are their rivals in motor transport F
business as officers entitle!! to exercise powers conferred under section 129-A
of the Act was violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India.
These Writ Petitions/ Civil Appeals are opposed by the State
Government and the Corporation. It is contended by the respondents that the
impugned notification is issued only to protect the interests of the Corporation
and in order to prevent the running of motor vehicles either as stage carriages G
or contract carriages along the routes over which the ·Corporation is
exclusively entitled to operate its stage carriages under permits issued under
Chapter IV A of the Act. They also contend that the appointment of the
officers of the Corporation under section 129-A of the Act is not outside the
· scope of that section. In the course of the hearing it wassubmitted thatthe said H
powers would not be used against motor vehicles covered by permits issued
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.
A under section 63(7) of the Act although it is alleged that even such vehicles had
been seized and detained in the past by the officers of the Corporation. Section
129-A of the Act with which we are concerned in this case reads as follows:
"129-A. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of
registration or permit-Any police "Officer authorized in this
B behalf or other person authorized in this behalf by the State
Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor
vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the
provisions of section 22 or without the permit required by sub-
section (1) of section 42 or in contravention ofany condition of
c
such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which
or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and
--
'
detain the vehicle, and for this purpose take or cause to be
taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe
custody of the vehicle.
Provided that where any such officer or person has
D reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used
without the permit required by sub-section (1) of section 42, he
may, instead of seizing the vehicle, seize the certificate of
registration of the vehicle and shall issue an acknowledgement
in respect thereof.
Provided further that where a motor vehicle has been
E
seized and detairn;d under this section for contravention of the
provisions of section 22, such vehicle shall not be released to the
owner unless and until he produces a valid-certificate of
registration under this Act in respect of that vehicle."
Section 129-A was introduced into the Act by section 20 of the Motor
F Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1942 (Act 20 of 1942). Section 133-A was
introduced by section 21 of the very Amending Act. Orginally section 133-A
contained only the first three sub-sections. Sub-sections (4) and (5) to section
-l
133-A were added later. Now section 133-A reads thus:
"133-A. Appointment of motor vehicles officer-(!) The State
G Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect the
provisions of this Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department
and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit.
(2) Every such off;cer shall be deemed to be a public
servant within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
H 1860).
l.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 307
(3) The State Government may make rules to regulate the
.A
discharge by officers of.the Motor Vehicles Department of their
functions and in particular 11nd without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoi~g power to prescribe the uniform to be ·
worn by them. the authorities to which they shall· be
subordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the powers
(including the powers exercisable by police officers under this B
Act) to be exercised by them, and the conditions governing the
exercise of such powers. ·
(4) In addition to the powers that may be conferred on
any officer of (he Motor Vehicles Department under sub-
section (3); such officer as may be empowered by the State
Government in this behalf shall also have the power to(-)
c
(a) make such .examination and inquiry as he thinks fit in
order to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act and the
rules made thereunder are being observed;
D
(b) with such assistance, if any, as he thinks_fit, enter,
inspect and search any_ premises which is in !he occupation of a
person who, he has reason to believe, has committed an offence
u_nder this Act or in which a mOtor vehicle in respect of which
r such offence has been' committed is kept:
E
Provided that-
(i) any such search .,;,,ithout a warrant shall be made only
by an officer of the rank of a ga7etted officer;
(ii) where the offence is pnnishabl~ with fine only the F
search shall not be made after sunset and before sunrise;
(iii) where the search is made without a warrant, the
gazetted officer toncerned shall record in writing the grounds
for_ not obtaining ·a warrant and report to his immediate
superior that such search has been made; G
(e) examine any person a~d require the production of any
register or other document maintained in pursuance of this Act,
and take on the. spot or otherwise statements of any person
which he may consider nec.essary for carrying out the purposes
of this Act; H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS, [ 1987] I S,C R",
(d) seize or take copies of any registers or documents or
A
portions thereof as he may consider relevant in respect of an
offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been
committed;
(e) launch prosecutions in respect of aily offence under
this Act and to take a bond for ensuring the attendance of the
B
offender before any court;
(!) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed:
Provided that no person shall be compelled under this
sub-section to answer any question or make any statement
c tending to incriminate himself,
(5) The provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure
1973 (2 of 1974) shall, so far as may be, apply to any search or
seizure under this section as ihey apply to any search or seizure
under the authority of any warrant issued under section 94 of
D
that Code,"
In Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh v, Sardar Ali, Bus
Owner, [1983] S,CR, 729, this Court has while upholding the
constitutionality of section in 129-A of the Act explained its scope, manner
and _the different powers which are exercisable by an officer empowered under
E that section to exercise the powers mentioned therein. In that case the
appellant was the Transport Commissioner of the State of Andhra Pradesh
and not the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Any police
officer or other person authorized by the State Government under section 129-
·A of the Act may seize and detain a motor vehicle if he has reason to believe
that the motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the
F provisions of section 22 of the Act, or without the permit required by sub- -i
section (I) of section 42 of the Act, or in contravention of any conditions of
such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose
for which the vehicle may be used, He is also to take or cause to be taken any
steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle, In
the first proviso to section 129-A of the Act such authorised officer may
G instead of seizing the vehicle seize the certificate of registration of vehicle and ·
issue an acknowledgement in respect thereof, It further provides that where
the motor vehicle has been seized or detained under the said section for
contravention of the provisions of section 22 of the Act, such vehicle shall not
be released to the owner unless and uniil he produces a valid certificate of
registration under that Act in respect of that vehicle, The said powers can be
H exercised in respect of any motor vehicle such as an omnibus, a car, an auto-
1.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 309
1ikshaw, .a tractor, a lorry etc. etc., the expression 'motor vehicle' having been
A
defined by the Act in sub-section (18) of section 2 of the Act thus:
"2(18). 'motor vehicle' means any mechanically propelled
vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of
propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal
source and includes a chassis to· which a body has not been B
attached and a trailer, but does not include a vehicle running
upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use
onl~·in a factory or in any other enclosed premises."
Section 22 of the Act requires every person to get his motor vehicle
registered under the Act. It provides that no person _shall drive any motor
vehicle and that nci owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle
c
to be driven in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of
carrying passengers or goods unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with
Chapter IIJ of the Act and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not
been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark
displayed in the prescribed manner. Section 42 of the Act provides that no D
owner of a 'transport vehicle' as defined in sub-section (33) of section 2 of the
Act shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place whether or not
such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or.goods save in accordance
with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or
State Transport Authority or the Commission authorising the use of the
vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. A E
'transport vehicle' means a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle. The
different kinds of permits that may be issued in respect of motor vehicles are
- set out in Chapter IV of the Act. They may be stage carriages, contract
carriages, or public carriers. The other kind of transport vehicle is that in
respect of which a permit is issued under section 63(7) of the Act which confers
the privilege on the holder of the permit to use the vehicle throughout the F
territories of India. Every permit issued under Chapter IV of the Act contains
a number of conditions which are specified therein. The contravention of
either section 22 or section 42(1) of the Act or any of the conditions mentioned
in the permit would entitle an officer empowered under section 129-A of the
Act to seize and detain the vehicle in question and also to provide for its
temporary safe custody. A report or complaint, as the case may be, also may G
be filed by him before the Magistrate for taking action against the owner of the
vehicle for violation of any of the provisions of the Act referred to above. It is
thus seen that the powers are of a drastic nature and have the effect of
depriving the owner ofa motor vehicle of his property, which sometimes may
be of the value of Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs. They also have the effect of depriving the
passengers who are travelling in that vehicle of a transport service right in the H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.
middle of a route and may expose them to 'hunger and thirst' as it was widely ¥
A advertised in a Pamphlet issued by the Corporation· itself. It is against the
above_ background that we have to consider whether it was open to the State
Government in this case to authorise some of the officers of the Corporation to
exercise the powers under section 129-A of the Act.
Section 129-A of the Act enables the State Government to appoint "any
B police officer ... or other person"undersection 129-A ofthe Actto exercise the )If·
powers mentioned therein. In so far as the appointment ofa police officer for
the said purpose, there is no room for any doubt because the section expressly
mentions that a police officer can be authorised under it to exercise the powers
mentioned therein. The short question which arises for consideration is ·1 •
whether ihe expression "other person" mentioned in section 129-A of the Act r
C can include persons other than Government officers, such as the officers of the
Corporation. The Corporation is established under the Road Transport ..
Corporations Act, 1950 (Act 64 of 1950) hereinafter referred to as 'the
Corporations Act). The Corporations Act was enacted to provide for the
incorporation and regulation of road transport corporations. Under section 3
of the Corporations Act, every State Government is authorised to establish a
D Road Transport Corporation. The corporation, in question, is one established
under that section. It is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a
common seal. The management of the Corporation vests in a Board of
Directors who are appointed for a prescribed period. It consists of a Chairman
and other Directors, being not Jess than 5 and not more than 17, who may be ~
officials of the State Government or private persons as the State Government I'·
E may think fit to appoint. The capital of the Corporation consists of any
amount contributed by the Central Government or the State Government.
The Corporation may, whether or not any capital is provided by the State
Government or the Central Government, be authorised to raise by the issue of
shares such capital as may be authorised in this behalf by the State
Government. The authorised share capital of the Corporation may be divided · .·
F into such number of shares as the State Government may determine and the
number of shares which shall be subscribed by the State Government or the
Central Government and other .persons (including persons whose
undertakings have been acquired by the Corporation) is liable to be
11
determined by the State Government in consultation with the Central
Government. The allotment of shares to other parties mentioned in sub-
G section (3) of section 23. of the Corporations Act shall be made by the
Corporation in such manner as may be pre3cribed. Dividends may be paid on _-_... _
the shares issued by it as per law. The Corporation may at any time, with the ·1"
previous approval of the State Government, redeem the shares issued to the
other parties in such manner as may be prescribed. The Corporation is under
an obligation to obey the direction's which may be issued by the State
H ·Government. If the State Government is of the opinion that the Corporation is
1.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 311
unable to perform its duties or has persistently made default in the A
. performance of the duties imposed on it by or utider the provisions of th~·
Corporations Act or has exceeded or abus~d its powers, the State Government
may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, by notification in
the Official Gazette, supersede the Corpo.ration for such period as may be
specified. in the notification. Thus, it is seen that the Corporation is not a
department of the Government but it is an independent· body corporate B
established under the statute. Section 14 of the Corporations Act provides that
every Corporation shall have a Managing Director, a Chief Accounts Officer
and a Financial Adviser, appointed by the State Government. It further
provides that a Corporation may appoint a Secretary and such other officers
and employees as it considers necessary for the efficient ' performance of its
functions. The co.nditions of appointment and service and scales of pay of the C
officers and employees of a Corporation are dealt with by sub-section (3) of ·
~ection 14 of the Corporations Act. It provides that the conditions of
appointment and service and the scales of pay of the officers and employee• of
the Corporation shall (a) as respects the Managing Director, the Chief
Accounts Officer and the Financial Adviser, or, as the case may be, the Chief
Accounts Officer-cum-Financial Adviser, be such, as may be prescribed and D
as respects' the other officers and employees be such as may be subject to the
· provisions of section 34, be determined by• regulations made under the
Corporations Act. Section 15 of the Corporations Act provides that the
Managing Director shall be the executive head of the Corporation and all
other officers an.d employees of the Corporation shall be subordinate to him.
It is, thus, seen that the officers and servants of the Corporation are not E
holders of civil posts under the State Government, but they are employees of
- the Corporation. The functions of the Corporation are set out in section 19 uf
the Corporations Act. Subject to the other provisions of the Corporations
Act, A Corporation shall have power to operate road transport services in the
State and in any extended area, to provide any ancillary service, to provide for
its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment F
'of provident fund, living accommodation, places for rest and recreation and
other amenities, to authorise the issue of passes to its employees and other
persons either free of cost or at concessional ·rates and on such conditions as it
may deerti fit to impose, to acquire and held such property, both movable and
immovable as the Corporation may deem necessary for the purpose of any of
the said activities, and to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any property held by it G . ·
etc. etc. It may also with the prior approval of the State Government do all
other ihings to facilitate the proper carrying of the business of the
Corporati oh.
Ther~ is no provision in the Corporations Act authorising the Corpora-
tion to permit any of its officers to exercise the powers under section 129-A of H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[1987] I S.C.R.
the Act or to spend money on the safe custody of vehicles which are seized and
A detained under section I 29-A of the Act. The Corporation no doubt is entitled
to draw up schemes under section 68-C of the Act and to run motor vehicles in
accordance with the said scheme after it is approved by the State Government
to the exclusion complete or partial of other operators on any notified route or
in notified area. Section 68-B of the Act provides that the provisions of
Chapter IV A of the Act and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have
B effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in Chapter
IV of the Act or any other Jaw for the time being in force or in any instrument
having effect by virtue ofany such Jaw. From the reading of the provisions of
the Act and of the Corporation Act it is evident that the Corporation is just
another operator of motor vehicles which is entitled to run motor vehicles in
accordance with law after obtaining permits. When the Corporation applies
c for permits under Chapter IV of the Act it has· to compete with other
applicants to obtain permits in accordance with the provisions of that
Chapter. When an approved scheme is brought into operation under Chapter
IV-A of the Act. it is no doubt entitled to get permits to the exclusion, complete
or partial, of other operators. It is also true that when the approved scheme
•
'
provides that other operators are excluded completely or partially no private
D operator can operate his motor vehicles along the notified route or in the
notified area in question except in accordance with the approved scheme.
Barring what is stated above and some other liabilities from which the
Corporation is expressly exempted under the Act, the Corporation is subject
to all the obligations and responsibilities which are imposed on other private
operators by the Act. It is subject to the powers of supervision and control of
E the transport authorities under the Act and to the rules governing the proper
maintenance of transport vehicles. The Corporation is also subject to the
jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Department which is established under
section I 33-A of the Act and its vehicles are liable to be inspected and checked
-
by the officers appointed under that section in the interests of the travelling
public. It is thus clear that the Corporation is one of the many operators of the
F motor vehicles in the State though the fleet of the inotor vehicles owned by it
and the magnitude of the operations carried on by it may be very large. The
police officers who are empowered to exercise certain powers under the Act
should exercise those powers in respect of motor vehicles owned by the private
operators and also in respect of the motor vehicles owned by the Corporation.
Negligence· on the part of the Transport Authorities, the Motor Vehicles
G Department and the police officers in exercising their powers of supervision,
inspection and control in respect of the motor vehicles of the Corporation
leads to grave public suffering and sometimes to disasters. They should not
take it for granted that the motor vehicles of the Corporation do not need to be
checked or inspected only because it is established by the State Government.
H Omission on their part in discharging these duties amounts to dereliction of
public duty.
LS. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [VENKATARAMJAH, J.] 313
Section 129-A and section 133-A of the Act, as mentioned earlier, were A
introduced into the Act by Act 20 of 1942. Clauses 20 and 21 of the Notes on
Clauses found in the Statemeqt of Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill
relating to the Amending Act of 1942 read thus:
"Clause 20-Although the plying of vehicles without
registration or of transport vehicles without a permit is B
punishable, there is no provision for stopping them from plying
and thus continuing their offence. The clause provides for the
grant of power for authorised officers to detain vehicles so as to
prevent their being used without being registered or without a
permit or in violation of certain conditions of the permit.
Clause 21-The powers under Chapters VI and VII with which
c
police officers have been invested cannot be exercised by
officers of other departments of the Provincial Government. It
is desirable that when special departments am set up for the
purpose of administering the Act, the officers of these
departments should have the powers entrusted to police D
· officers by the Act." ·
Clause 20 relates to section 129-A of the Act and clause 21 relates to
section 133-A of the Act. It is clear from clause 20 that by enacting section 129-
A of the Act the Central Legislature intended to authorise certain officers to
detain vehicles so as to prevent being used without being registered or without E
a permit or for violation of certain conditions of the permit. Clause 21 of the
Notes on Clauses explains the reason for establishing the Motor Vehicles
Department in a State. Sub-section (3) of section 133-A of the Act provides
that the State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by the
officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular
and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the F
uniforms to be worn by them, the authorities to whiCh they shall be
subordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the powers (including the-
powers exercisable by police officers under the Act) to be exercised by them
and the conditions governing the exercise of such power8'. Sub-section (4) of
section 133-A authorises inter alia the State Government to empower the
officers of the Motor Vehicles Department to exercise powers of search G
without ,a warrant in certain cases, to examine any person and require 'th.e
production of any register or other document maintained in pursuance of the
Act, and take on the spot or otherwise statements of any person which they
may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act, to launch
prosecutions in respect of any offence under the Act and to take a bond for
ensuring the attendance of the offender before any court. A reading of section H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] ! S.C.R.
A 129-A and section 133-A of the Act together shows that the "other person"
referred to in section 129-A of the Act, who may be empowered to discharge
the powers under that section can only mean an officer of the Government,
such as the Motor Vehicles Officer appointed under section 133-A of the Act
or of any other department. It could never have been the intention of the
Central Legislature, while enacting section 129-A and section 133-A of the Act
B that the powers exercisable under section 129-A of the Act could be conferred
on persons who were not officers of the Government. If the Central
Legislature intended that such powers could be entrusted to private persons or
employees of any statutory Corporation the section would have expressly
provided in that regard. Ordinarily, whenever a statute empowers the State
Government to appoint persons t~ administer any of the provisions of the
C statute, the persons who may be appointed by the State Government under
such provision can only be persons appointed in connection with the affairs of
the State. In other words they should be or employees officers of the State
Government, who are subject to the admini~trative and disciplinary control of
the State Government directly. The powers of search, seizure and detention of
vehicles belonging to private parties and of launching prosecutions are
D incidental to the soveriegn powers of the State and they cannot ordinarily be
entrusted to private persons unless the staute concerned makes express
provisions in that regard. It is a different" matter if a private person on his own
files a complaint before magistrate and wishes to establish a criminal charge.
In such a case the private person would not be investigating into the crime with
the aid of the powers of search, seizure or detention. The Magistrate may,ifhe
E so desires, direct a police officer to investigate into the allegations and report to
him. In order to illustrate the above point reference may be made to section 43
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It provides that any private person
may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a
non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any, proclaimed offender, and,
without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any
F person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absenee of a police officer, take
such person'or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.
We are of the view that the expression ''other person" mentioned in section
129-A of the Act which has to be read ejusdem generis with the words 'any
police officer' which precede that expression in section 129-A of the Act can
only refer to ari officer of the Government and not to any officer or employee
G of any statutory Corporation or to any other private person. We have a similar
provision in section 129 of the Act. That section authorises the State
Government to empower any police officer or other person to exercise the
powers under that section. Such police officer or other person may, if he has
reason to believe that any identification mark carried on a motor vehicle or
any licence, permit, certificat"e of registration, certificat'e of insurance or other
H document produced to him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle
l.S. BAGGA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [VENKATARAMIAH, J.i 315
.,{ is a false document within the meaning of section 464 of the Indian Penal Code
A
(45 of 1860), seize the mark or document and call upon the driver or owner of
the vehicle to account for his possession of or the presence in the vehicle of
such mark or document. That section also provides that.any police officer
authorised in that behalf or other person authorised in that behalf by the State
Government may, if he has reason to believe that the driver ofa motor vehicle
who is charged with any offence under the Act may abscond or otherwise B
avoid the service of a summons, seize any licence held by such driver and
forward it to the Court taking cognizance of the offence and the said Court
shall, on the first appearance of such driver before it, return the licence. to him
in exchange for the temporary acknowledgment given under sub-section (3) of
section 129 of the Act. Having regard to the nature of the power, the
expression "other person" in section 129 also will have to be interpreted as C
meaning any other person appointed in connection with the affairs of the State
Government and not any private person or officer of a Corporation.
It may be that the Corporaiion is established by the Government with
· the capital contributed by the Central Government or the State Government
and it may also be that for the purposes of Part III qf the Constitution the D
·corporation is treated as 'a State'. Nevertheless the officers of the Corporation
carinot be treated as persons falling within the meaning of the expression
"other persons" in section 129 or section 129-Aofthe Act, even though some
of them may be officers deputed by the State Government to work as the
officers and servants of the Corporation. In view of the foregoing we hold that
the Deputy General Manager (Traffic), the Assistant Depot Managers and the E
Traffic Inspectors of the Corporation could.not have been authorised by the
State Government to discharge the powers under section 129-A of the Act.
The impugned Notification has to fail on this account only. We also hold that
the reasons given in support of the decision in Krishna Bus Service case (supra)
are eqi.ally applicable to this case also.
~·· It was argued that on account of unauthorised use of motor vehicles as
F
stage carriages or contract carriages' on the notified routes over which the
Corporation has got exclusive right to operate its vehicles, the Corporation is
losing a large amount of revenue and therefore it was necessary to empower
the officers of the Corporation to exercise the powers under section 129-A of
the Act. We do not find it as a satisfactory ground to uphold the impugned G
Notification. The police officers ~nd the officers of the Motor Vehicles
Department are expected to discharge their duties properly and diligently and
if they .discharge their duties in accordance with law with the amount of
diligence which is required of them, there should be no difficulty in plugging
any kind of unauthorised running of stage carriages or contract carriages On
the notified routes. We have to impress upon the police officers and the officers H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.
A of the Motor Vehicles Department of the State of Rajasthan not to allow the
confidence vested in them to be eroded. We hope and trust that they would
discharge the duties to be performed by them strictly and ensure that the
provisions of the Act are obeyed by the motor vehicle operators.
B In view of the foregoing, the impugned Notification is liable to be set.
aside and we accordingly quash it.
Before leaving this case we have to observe that in some of the orders
passed by certain magistrates in respect of persons accused of running motor
vehicles unauthorisedly on the notified routes it is seen that the fines levied
C thereunder have been ordered to be paid over to the Corporation. We are told
that the Corporation has realised several lakhs of rupees under such orders.
Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for payment of
compensation out of the fine to certain persons. The orders directing payment )
of compensation to the Corporation may have been passed under clause (b) of
that section which provides that the fine recovered may be applied in the
D payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the
offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by
such person in a Civil Court. Prima facie, we feel that the Corporation is not
entitled to be paid any compensation under section 357 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. It can be paid such compensation only when it is
open to the Corporation to file a suit and recover damages in law for such
E unauthorised operation of stage carriages. The question whether such
unauthorised running will give rise to a claim for damages in a civil court is not
free from doubt. We do not, however, express our opinion on the above
question. This is a matter in which the State is also interested. We hope that the
magistrates before whom such cases 11re filed hereafter will, before passing an
order under section 357 of the Code c•f Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of
F the Corporation, examine and decid' the question in accordance with law.
Jn the result these writ Petitions/ Civil Appeals are allowed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
S.R. Petitions & Appeals allowed.
G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search