(1.)The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice: These are two connected petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, one for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, R. No. 203/A2/52 dated 25-3-1952 and the other for directing him to renew the permit of bus M.D.I. 242 in his favour. The Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, granted the petitioner a stage-carriage permit in respect of bus M. D. I. No. 242 to operate on the route Chittoor -Madanapalli. The permit of the said bus was to expire on 1-3-1952. On 3-1-1952, he filed an application for renewal of the same. The said application was duly notified under section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and representations were called for on or before 10-3-1952. No representation objecting to the renewal was filed or received. The Secretany, Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor, in exercise of the powers delegated to him, refused to renew the permit on the ground that the history-sheet of the operator was bad and that he plied the vehicle without paying tax for 18 days. The said two writs were filed to quash that order and to direct the Regional Transport Authority to renew the permit in petitioner's favour. Mr. Srinivasamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, questioned the validity of Rule 134-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules empowering the Board to delegate its powers to the Secretary and Rule 160-C prescribing the payment of tax due as a condition of every permit, on various grounds. On the basis that the said rules are invalid, he argues that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority had no power to refuse to renew the permit and that he also acted illegally in refusing it on the ground that no tax under the provisions of the Act was paid. We shall now proceed to consider the contentions raised by the learned Counsel seriatim.
(2.)The first contention is that the rules including Rule 160-C of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules were issued by the Governor during the pendercy of the Governor's rule and therefore, they ceased to have any force under sub-section (4) of section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, after two years from the date of the proclamation. To appreciate this contention, some of the relevant facts may be stated. On 30th October, 1939, the Governor issued a proclamation under section 93 of the Government of India Act assuming to himself all the powers of the Legislature and the Executive government. On 30-3-1940, in exercise of the powers conferred under the various sections of the Act, the Governor issued the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1940, to come into force on 1st April 1940. The proclamation ceased to have effect on 30-10-1946.
(3.)The question is whether the rules issued by the Governor during the state of proclamation expired after two years from the date of the withdrawal of the proclamation. The answer to this question would depend upon the interpretation of the relevant provisions of section 93 of the Government of India Act and the s cope of the proclamation issued thereunder. The material portion of section 93 of the Government of India Act reads:
"If at any time the Governor of a Province is satisfied that a situation has arisen in. which the Government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, he may by proclamation (a) declare that his functions shall, to such extent as may be specified in the proclamation, be exercised by him in his discretion ; (b)come to himself all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by any Pfovincial body" or authority and any such Proclamation may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part of the operation of any provisions of this Act relating to any Provincial body or, authority: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall authorise the Governor to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court or to suspend either in whole or in part, the operation of any provision of this Act relating to High Courts.: (4) If the Governor, by a Proclamation under this section, assumes to himself any power , of the Provincial Legislature to make laws, any law made by him in the exercise of that power shall, subject to the terms thereof, continue to have effect until two years have elapsed from the date on which the Proclamation ceases to have effect, unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by Act of the appropriate Legislature, and any reference in this Act to Provincial Acts, Provincial Laws, or Acts or laws of a Provincial legislature shall be construed as including a reference to such a law. (5) The functions of the Governor under this Section shall be exercised by him in his discretion and no proclamation shall be made by a Governor under this Section without the concurrence of the Governor-General in his discretion." Pursuant to the powers given to the Governor under this Section, he issued a Proclamation on 30-10-1939. The relevant portion of that Proclamation reads: Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 93 of the Act and with the concurrence of the Governor-General, the Governor by this Proclamation: (a) declares that all his functions under the Act shall be exercised by him in his discretion; (b) assumes to himself all powers vested by or under the Act in the Provincial Legislature and all powers vested in either chamber of that legislature but not so as to affect any power exercisable by His Majesty, with respect to Bills reserved for his consideration or the disallowance of Acts; and he hereby makes the following incidental or consequential provisions which appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of this Proclamation."