In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the law regarding maintainability of special appeals against orders passed by officers of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC). The case, Special Appeal No. 31 of 2021, was presided over by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, and Justice Vikas Budhwar.
Background:
The case arose from the dismissal of a writ petition filed by Rajit Ram Yadav, a former conductor in UPSRTC, challenging his removal from service. When Yadav filed a special appeal against the single judge’s order, questions were raised about its maintainability under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether special appeals are maintainable against orders passed by UPSRTC authorities under the corporation’s service regulations.
2. Whether the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 falls under the Union List or Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Court’s Findings:
1. Maintainability of Special Appeals:
The court held that special appeals are maintainable against orders passed by UPSRTC authorities under the corporation’s service regulations. It observed:
“Intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against a judgment of Single Judge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, preferred against an order passed by an officer or authority exercising appellate or revisional power under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981, is maintainable”.
2. Legislative Competence:
The court ruled that the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 falls under Entries 43 and 44 of the Union List, not the Concurrent List. It stated:
“Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, we are of the considered opinion that the Act is referable to List 1 Entry 43 and 44. The power to legislate in relation to ‘regulation of the corporations’ under the aforesaid Entries, includes within its umbrella the regulation of its workforce”.
Important Observations:
The court emphasized the application of the “pith and substance” doctrine in determining legislative competence:
“The doctrine of pith and substance can be applied to examine the validity or otherwise of a legislation for want of legislative competence as well as where two legislations are embodied together for achieving the purpose of the principal Act”[173].
On interpreting constitutional provisions, the court noted:
“The expression used in a constitutional enactment conferring legislative powers must be construed not in any narrow or restricted sense but in a sense beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of its powers”.
Also Read
Bench and Counsel:
The three-judge bench comprised Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta, and Justice Vikas Budhwar. Senior Advocate Samir Sharma appeared for the appellant, while the State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.
