Holding

The notification dated 18 October 1996 is a valid exercise of the Central Government's power under Section 58(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and does not constitute abdication or unlawful delegation.

Summary

The appellants, owners of three‑axle transport vehicles, challenged a Central Government notification dated 18 October 1996 that prescribed maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight under Section 58(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They argued that the phrase "whichever is less" and the reliance on manufacturers' ratings amounted to an abdication or unlawful delegation of the Government's statutory power. The respondents contended that the notification merely operationalised the statutory scheme, incorporating manufacturers' ratings and testing agency certifications as prescribed by the Rules. The Court examined the statutory framework, including Sections 58, 109, 110 and the relevant Rules, and held that the notification was a valid exercise of the power conferred on the Central Government and did not constitute delegation. It further clarified that the "whichever is less" provision aligns with the safety‑oriented purpose of the Act, ensuring that the maximum vehicle weight never exceeds the safe axle weight. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the notification.

Issues considered

Whether the notification dated 18 October 1996 issued under Section 58(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, amounts to an abdication or unlawful delegation of the Central Government's power to prescribe maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight.
Whether the inclusion of the phrase "whichever is less" in the notification is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Motor Vehicles Rules.
Whether reliance on manufacturers' ratings and testing agency certifications, as incorporated in the notification, is permissible under the statutory scheme.
Whether the registration authorities' discretion, as guided by the notification, complies with the requirements of the Act and Rules.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 109, s. 110, s. 52, s. 58

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 58maximum gross vehicle weightmaximum safe axle weightdelegation of powerabdication of poweradministrative lawvehicle registrationroadworthiness

Judgment

N. VENKATESWARA RAO AND ORS ETC. A
v.
S.T.A. AND ORS. ETC.

NOVEMBER 21, 1996

.. [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]
B

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 as amended by
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993:

S. 58/Ru/es 7,47 and 95-Maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum c
safe axle weight-Central Government Notifications dated 8.6. 1989 and
18.10.1996-Notification dated 8.6.1989 challenged on the ground that it was
in abdication of the power given to the Central Government to prescribe the
maximum grnss vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight-f'ending
appeal before this Court, the Act and the Rules were amended and on D
directions of this Court the Central Government issued Notification dated
18.10.1996-Held, by issuance of Notification dated 18.10.1996, Central
Government has not abdicated its power of control and prescribing specifica-
tion u/s. 58, nor is it a delegation of power to the manufacturer-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 E
behalf-Manufacturer is required to conform to the specificatioM-Rule 95
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--Maximum safe axle weight would always be the F
criteria and the maximum vehicle weight should normally be in conformity
with the safe axle weight.

Administrative Law by HWR, Wade (Seventh Edition) p. 358, referred
to.
G
~P CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2273-75
of 1992 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.91J22.l.92 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 62il/90, 6964 and 14801of1991. H
73
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A Mrs. K. Amareswari, Rajiv Dhawan, A Raghuvir, P.P. Malhotra,
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AV. Rangam, A Ranganadhan, R. Santhana Krish-
nan, L.N. Rao, P.P. Singh, T.N. Rao, P. Niroop, Ms. Nandini Gore, S.
Sadasiva Reddy, Ms. S. Usha Reddy, H.A. Raichura, S.H. Raichura, V.S.
Reddy, S.U.K. Sagar, T. Rajender Prasad, G.R.K. Prasad, K. Ram Kumar,
B Mrs. Asha Nair, C. Balasubramanian, Y.S. Rao, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ar-
vind Kr. Sharma, Ms. Anubha Jain, P.N. Misra, S.M. Jadhav, J.M. Nanavati
Associates and B.S. Banthia for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

C 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.
D 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
E 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 conse-
F quence thereof their 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
G before this Court, by order dated February 1, 1996 this Court pointed out
that 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
H on October 18, 1996 exercising the power under Section 58(1) of the Act
N.V. RAO v. S.T.A 75

it
,. and also appended explanatory note to the said notification. A

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
B
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. c
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
D
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 obviate E
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 prescribes various circumstances enumerated in the F
matter of construction, equipment and maintenance of the motor vehicles. ~

After taking into consideration all the relevant factors, namely, the maxi-
mum 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 G
_J•
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 H
76 SUPREME COURT RJ;lPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 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 'tyre weight' which would approximately be Jess than the
"
maximum prescribed so that the load weight of the goods and vehicle
weight remain constant, the roadworthiness of the vehicle would be con-
tinned and the safety of the carriage of goods would also be ensured. If
B 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 Oc-
c tober 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 the
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 are registered by the Registering Authority as
D permissible for that vehicle. Section 2(36) defines "registered axle weight"
to mean, in respect to 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.
E
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
F the vehicle.

(2) Every motor vehicle shall be so constructed as to have right
hand steering control unless it is equipped with a mechanical or
electrical signaling device of a prescribed nature."

G 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
H capacity are required to be prescribed. In accordance therewith, the Rules
N.V.RAOv.S.TA 77

• have been made. Chapter V of the Rules deal with construction, equipment
and maintenance of the motor vehicles. Rule 92 gives a general prescription
A

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 vehicle and Rule
94 prescribes the conditions of the tyres. Rule 95 prescribes the size, ply
B
rating of tyres as per the Schedule given 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 c
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
D
(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 India or Automotive Research
Association of India, Pune, or the Central Machinery Testing and E
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
J
as to the compliance of provision·s of the Act and these rules."
F
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 emission of smoke,
vapour, etc. from vehicle and also other conditions, the details of which are G
not material for the purpose of these cases. Registration of motor vehicle
--e~
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 H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A be registered in the form. Column 26 specifies maximum axle weight etc.,
the details of which have been mentioned in clauses (a) to (b). 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,
B 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 conformable to Rule 47. Equal are the provisions with respect
C to the tyres which need no reiteration.

In this behalf, the power of the Central Government has been crys-
tallized in Section 58 of the Act. Section 58 reads as under :

"58. Special provisions in regard to transport vehicles. - (1) The
D 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 els make and model and other relevant
considerations, hy notification in the Official Gazette, specify, in I
relation to each make and model of a transport vehicle, the
maximum (gross vehicle) weight of such vehicle and the maximum
E
safe axle weight of each axle of such vehicle.

(2) A registering authority, when registering a transport vehicle,
other then a motor cab shall enter in the record of registration and
shall also enter in the certificate of registration of the vehicle the
F following particulars, namely :

(a) the unladen weight of the vehicle;

(b) the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to each
wheel;
G (c) the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle and the registered
axle weights pertaining to the several axles thereof; and

(d) if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for the carriage
o{ passengers solely or in addition to goods, the number of pas-
H sengers for whom accommodation is provided, and the owner of
N.V.RAOv.S.TA 79
the vehicle shall have the same particulars exhibited in the A
prescribed manner on the vehicle.

(3) There shall not be entered in the certificate of registration of
any such vehicle any gross vehicle weight or a registered axle weight
or any of the axles different from that specified in the notification B
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 C
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. D

A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the Central Govern-
ment 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 E
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 vehicle the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to F
each wheel; the maximum gross vehicle weight of the vehicle and the
registered axle weights pertaining to the several 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 G
the Registering Authority has to 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 inbuilt
procedure under the Act to maintain construction, equipment and main-
tenance of the motor vehicle as regards its maximum gross vehicle weight, H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A maximum safe axle weight, the nature and size of the tyres fitted to the
vehicle and also maximum safe axle weight of each axle of the vehicle as
entered in the certificate of registration or revised, if there occurred change
in the weight.

The question, therefore, is : whether the Government in exercising
B 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
C 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 maxi-
mum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle
D 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 :

"(i) Vehicle manufacturers rating of the gross vehicle weight and
axle weight respectively for each make and model as duly certified
E 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
F
(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 :
G
Provided that the maximum gross vehicle weight in respect of
all such transport vehicles, inciuding 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 maximum
H gross vehicle weight given in the said Schedule."
N.V.RAOv.S.TA 81
It is seen that Schedule has been attached to this notification in which A
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 true that clause (1)
by itself indicates and gives an impression that the Central Government has
abdicated its discretion in favour of the manufacturer, of rating the gross B
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 C
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 ad-
vancements in the automobile industry new models are being
added regularly and there will be practical difficulties and delays D
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 E
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 accord-
ance with the stipulation of the Government from the point of view F
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 satisfac-
tory operation of the transport vehicle.
G
The schedule in the notification specifies the maximum gross
vehicle weight and safe axle weight. Tyre sizes are not recom-
mended 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 H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A durability, ground clearance, ride and handling, braking and steer-
ing, 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 vehicles by the industry,
several new models are being added regularly; it is practically difficult for
B 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 tlecided that the
manufacturer specifies the maximum gross vehicle weight and the axle
C 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
D 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. Once that is done, the question of discrimina-
tion 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,
E 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 herein-
before.
F
Next contention is as to para (ii) of the notification. There is no
quarrel accross 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
G 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
H tonnes while Schedule I prescribes 25 tonnes as the maximum gross vehicle
N.V. RAO v. S.T.A 83
,. weight in respect of rigid vehicle having 3 axle, two tyres on front axle and A
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 B
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 Rule 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 C
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 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 D
the vehicles, the weight is variable. It should always be less than the,..
maximum of the safe axle weight mentioned in-the certificate of .registra-
tion. 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 imp~diment in the enforce- E
ment 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 remain F
without creating any traffic hazards. The driver would carry the goods
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 G
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 H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
'
A 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
B
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
c 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 or
Public Prosecutions when only required to 'have regard' to it. This
doctrine has even been applied to voting by local councillors.
D
Ministers and their departments have several times fallen foul
of the same rule, no doubt equally to their surprise. The Minisler
of Housing and Local Government made it a rule to refuse plan-
ning permission for gravelworking on top-class agricultural land
whenever the application was opposed by the Minister of Agricul-
E ture. 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 of-
ficer, who was empowered to direct reinstatement of workers
dismissed for misconduct. For the officer was acting under direc-
F
tions 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
G exercise of the discretion vested by the Parliament in its administrative
actions. The author has stated that the Parliament having given the discre- ..,_
tion_ to the authorities, they cannot abdicate its power tcr-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
H stated earlier, the Act itself regulates the manner in which the vehicles are
N.V.RAOv. S.TA 85

/ ~ to be constructed, equipped fitted and maintained and various indicia have A
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 B
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% C
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 roadwor-
thiness and safety would hinge upon the axle load vis-a-vis the tyres fitted D
to the axles as specified in the Act.

Thus it could be seen that the Central Government have not abdi-
cated their power of control and prescribing specification under Section
58 of the Act nor it is a delegation of the manufacturer. Therefore, we do E
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.

R.P. Appeals and Petition dismissed.