Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka Legislature's repeal of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 by Section 3 of Karnataka Act No. 9 of 2003, holding that the power to repeal is coextensive with the power to enact, that the earlier decisions upholding the 1976 Act did not bar its repeal, and that no fresh Presidential assent was needed. Reversing the High Court on the second issue, it held that the State Transport Authority may delegate the grant of non-stage carriage permits to its Secretary under Section 68(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 56(1)(d) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Issues
- Whether Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003, repealing the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, is constitutionally valid, given that the 1976 Act had received Presidential assent and been upheld by the Supreme Court.
- Whether the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities can delegate the power to grant contract carriage, special, tourist and temporary permits to the Secretary, or whether that quasi-judicial power must be exercised by the multi-member authority.
Provisions considered
- Section 3, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Karnataka Act No. 9 of 2003)Repealed the 1976 Act to liberalise contract carriage operations. Held constitutional: the Legislature's power to repeal is coextensive with its power to enact, the repeal was a considered policy choice reflected in the Act's objects, and it neither overruled earlier Supreme Court decisions nor required fresh Presidential assent. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 28)
- Whole Act, Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976Enacted with Presidential assent to acquire private contract carriages and vest permits in the State for transfer to KSRTC, and upheld in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy and Vijayakumar Sharma. Those decisions only affirmed its validity and did not prevent the Legislature from repealing it later. (¶¶ 4.1, 4.2, 10, 13)
- Section 68(5), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Permits the STA and any RTA, if authorised by rules under Section 96, to delegate powers and functions subject to prescribed restrictions. Held to expressly authorise delegation of the power to grant non-stage carriage permits to the Secretary. (¶¶ 20, 23, 27, 28, 30)
- Rule 56(1)(d), Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989Allows the STA, by resolution, to delegate its power to grant a permit other than a stage carriage permit to the Chairman, Secretary or an officer not below the rank of Regional Transport Officer. The exclusion of stage carriage permits alone showed a calibrated scheme under which routine permits are delegable. (¶¶ 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30)
- Section 96, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The rule-making power under which the KMV Rules authorising delegation were framed; the delegation operates within the conditions those rules prescribe. (¶¶ 20, 24)
- Seventh Schedule, List III, Entry 42, Constitution of IndiaThe 1976 Act was enacted under this entry (acquisition and requisitioning of property) with Presidential assent; the Court held that the State's competence to repeal it did not depend on fresh assent. (¶¶ 10, 13, 16)
Held
- The power of a legislature to repeal a law is coextensive with its power to enact it; subject to constitutional limits, a legislature may repeal any law it has enacted (following Ramakrishna v. Janpad Sabha). (¶¶ 10, 15)
- Decisions upholding the constitutional validity of a statute do not bind the legislature against modifying or repealing it when circumstances and policy change; repealing such a statute is not an impermissible overruling of those decisions. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17)
- A repealing statute extinguishes the earlier Act rather than recreating a legal framework, and is not subject to the requirement of fresh Presidential assent applicable to the original enactment, provided the repeal is within the State's legislative competence. (¶¶ 13, 17)
- Section 3 of Karnataka Act No. 9 of 2003, repealing the 1976 Act to end KSRTC's statutory monopoly and address shortages of public transport, is constitutional; the High Court's view on this issue was affirmed. (¶¶ 11, 14, 17, 18, 28)
- Even if the grant of permits has a quasi-judicial element, quasi-judicial functions may be delegated where the enabling statute expressly provides for it; Section 68(5) of the MV Act read with Rule 56(1)(d) of the KMV Rules does so for permits other than stage carriage permits (following Newtech Promoters & Developers v. State of U.P.). (¶¶ 21, 23, 25)
- The High Court conflated the quasi-judicial character of permit decisions with the statutory power to delegate; delegation within rules framed under Section 96 does not remove oversight and accountability, and refusing it would overload the STA and delay routine permits. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The STA may delegate to its Secretary the grant of contract carriage, special, tourist and temporary permits, subject to the limitations and conditions in the rules. (¶¶ 27, 28, 30)
Result
KSRTC's appeals dismissed; the appeals of the private bus operators and the Karnataka State Transport Authority allowed; the High Court's ruling denying the STA's power of delegation set aside and the Secretary of the STA held empowered to grant non-stage carriage permits under Section 68(5) of the MV Act and Rule 56(1)(d) of the KMV Rules; authorities directed to implement the findings.