U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. ASSISTANT COMNR. OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DELHI

1.2 The directions issued by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India must be held to be in addition to the conditions contained in the permit and/or the provisions of the Act. The direction issued by tius Court upon the authorities to ensure that the transport vehicles are not permitted to overtake any four wheels motorized vehicle was issued as in the view of this Court, the scheme of the A B c D E F G H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. B A Act necessarily Implied an obligation to use the vehicle in a manner which does not imperil public safety. Clause (e) of the order must be construed in the light of the purpose and object for which the Act was enacted. [Para 19] [248-D, E, F] 1.3 The direction that any breach will be considered to be in contravention of the conditions of the permit which could entail suspension/cancellation of the permit . and impounding of the vehicle must be read in the light of the provisions of the Act and not de hors the same. This Court could not and, in fact, did not while issuing the said c dfrection confer a statutory authority upon a person who did not have any such authority under the statute. An or- der passed by an authority without jurisdiction, it is trite, would be a nullity. It cannot be presumed that this Court would confer jurisdiction upon an authority whose order D would be a nullity and, thus, non-est in the eye of law. [Para 20] [248-G, H; 249-A]