T.O. Francis vs State of Assam and others

P.K. Goswami, C.J.—The petitioner in this Civil Rule is the owner of a 1948-Model Ford V-8 Motor Vehicle bearing Registration No. ASD-1353 and he has been holding a public carrier permit for this truck since 1954. Originally, the Manager, Lukwah Tea Estate was the owner of this vehicle and his registration certificate issued on 5th April 1949 shows unladen weight as 5600 lbs. and registered laden weight as 14.500 lbs. The pay-load is also shown as the difference between the two figures, namely 8,900 lbs. The petitioner purchased this vehicle from the original owner and the registration certificate with the identical particulars noted above was transferred to his name on 28th August 1953. The petitioner states that the principles to be followed for the purpose of calculating the amount of tax for the vehicle are to be found In the provisions of Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936 and the Rules made thereunder on the basis of authorised pay loads in respect of goods vehicles''. (Paragraph 5 of the petition). The Government of Assam published a notification dated 17th February, 1959. with the approval of the Central Government, classifying all transport vehicles other than motor cabs into two broad groups, namely (1) vehicles of 1952 and earlier models of all makes, and (2) vehicles of 1953 and later models of all makes and specifying the maximum safe laden weights and axle weights at 112 1/2 per cent and 125 per cent respectively of the gross vehicle weights and the maximum axle weights certified by the manufacturers of the vehicles for the aforesaid groups respectively. The notification is marked as Annexure ''AA'' to the petition, and this is the impugned notification in the present proceeding.

The notification was made u/s 36 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by Act 100 of 1956, which came into force on 15th January 1959. That section may be quoted:

(1) Having regard to the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to the wheels of a transport vehicle, other than a motor cab, and its make and model and other relevant considerations, a State Government may, with the approval of the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in relation to each make and model of a transport vehicle the maximum safe laden weight of such vehicle and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of such vehicle.

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

(a) the unladen weight of the vehicle;

(b) the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to each wheel;

(c) the registered laden 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 of passengers solely or in addition to goods the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided;

and the owner of the vehicle shall have the same particulars exhibited in the prescribed manner on the vehicle.

(3) There shall not be entered in the certificate of registration of any such vehicle any laden weight of the vehicle or a registered axle weight of any of its axles different from that specified in the notification under sub-section (1) in relation to the make and model of the vehicle and to the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to its wheels:

Provided that where it appears to a State Government that heavier weights than those specified in the notification under sub-section (1) may be permitted in a particular locality for vehicles of a particular type, the State Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this sub-section shall apply with such modifications as may be specified in the order.

(4) When by reason of any alteration In such vehicle, including an alteration in the number, nature or size of its tyres the registered laden 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 32 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.

(5) In order that the registered weight entered in the certificate of registration of a vehicle may be revised in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3), the registering authority may require the owners of transport vehicle in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed to produce the certificates of registration within such time as may be specified by the registering authority.

Sections 36 and 37 of the original Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were replaced by this amended section and Section 37 together with VII Schedule were omitted by this amendment. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the amended section is applicable in the present case. He however, strenuously contends that the notification is foreign to Section 36 of the amended Act and has been made in colourable exercise of power u/s 36. The Learned Counsel does not dispute the validity of Section 36. The impugned notification as noted earlier is made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 36 with the approval of the Central Government. It is not denied that the approval of the Central Government was taken by the State Government in making this notification.

The only submission which is made by Mr. Choudhuri is that the objects and reasons of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill. 1955 show that.

it is thus possible for a manufacturer to bid up as a "selling point", the certified weights to the limit of capacity of tyres, as somewhat liberally allowed in the Seventh Schedule..........It is therefore, now proposed that State Governments should be empowered to specify the maximum safe laden weight and axle weight in relation to any make or model of transport vehicle and that the registering authorities shall enter in the registration certificates the laden weight, etc. as specified by the State Government.........The amendments proposed are expected to serve as a check on the growing tendency to certify exaggerated weights, ignoring safety margins, and also to safeguard against the possibility of fixation of maximum permissible weights at an unwarrantable figure by merely fixing tyres of large sizes.

Relying upon these objects and reasons. Mr. Choudhuri strenuously contends that what is really sought to be now done by the impugned notification is to revise the pay-loads by stepping up the maximum safe laden weight and maximum safe axle weight only to enable the State Government to realise higher tax for the vehicles. This, according to the Learned Counsel, is against the very object and purpose of Section 36. The notification therefore is a fraud on that power.

It is true that the objects and reasons showed what Mr. Choudhuri has contended but the objects and reasons are no safe-guide to construe the provisions of the statute when these are clear. The objects and reasons of a Bill reflect the views of the member introducing the same at the time of initiation of the Bill. In the history and procedure of law making it is not unknown that an original Bill introduced sometimes assumes a different form after it goes through various stages of discussion and after several amendments may even be accepted by the mover of the Bill. What is crucial is the shape and form in which the Legislature finally accepts the Bill and passes it into law. The objects and reasons, therefore, cannot come to aid in construing the provisions of section 36, about which there is no ambiguity. The following observations of the Supreme Court in Aswini Kumar Ghosh and Another Vs. Arabinda Bose and Another, at p. 378 are apposite in this context:

As regards the propriety of the reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it must be remembered that it seeks only to explain what reasons induced the mover to introduce the Bill in the house and what objects he sought to achieve. But those objects and reasons may or may not correspond to the objective which the majority of members had in view when they passed it into law. The Bill may have undergone radical changes during its passage through the House or Houses and there is no guarantee that the reasons which led to its introduction and the objects thereby sought to be achieved have remained the same throughout till the Bill emerges from the House as an Act of the Legislature, for they do not form part of the Bill and are not voted upon by the members. We therefore, consider that the Statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill should be ruled out as an aid to the construction of a statute. (Paragraph 32)

It appears from a perusal of the provisions of Section 36 that the focus is on the margin of safety of the vehicle carrying load. While the manufacturer''s certificate may furnish some basis, the power is reserved for the State Government with the approval of the Central Government to specify the safe laden weights once again in the light of technical knowledge, experience and other guideline mentioned in the Act and also to revise the same when necessary. The State Government, with a constant eye to the margin of safety, is not left merely with the manufacturer''s estimate of the weight carrying capacity of the vehicle and can raise or lower the figure in appropriate cases. There is. therefore, no foundation for the objection that the State Government cannot in a given case raise the laden capacity of a vehicle as has been done in the present case. It is significant to note that in the amended section, the word ''safe'' has been introduced in Section 36 (1), qualifying ''laden and axle weight'' of a vehicle.

We are therefore, clearly of opinion that the impugned notification is not open to any legal objection and there is no colourable exercise of power by the State Government in making the same.

We are not concerned in the present case with the Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936 providing for imposition of tax on motor vehicles.

Mr. Choudhuri drew our attention to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Ghevarchand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, . In that decision, the petitioners sought to restrain the State Government from levying or realising any increase of additional tax under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 in excess of what is properly leviable according to the load carrying capacity as mentioned in the registration certificate and public carrier permits. The decision is therefore of not much assistance to the Learned Counsel in this case. We may observe that there is no assertion by the petitioner that the vehicle in question is unable to bear the burden of safe laden weight specified in the impugned notification.

In the result, the application is dismissed. We will, however, make no order as to costs.

D.M. Sen, J.

I agree.