Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for the specific section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that grants the State Government the authority to regulate and control road transport services. This power is crucial for managing public transport, issuing directions to transport authorities, and ensuring the efficient and coordinated operation of road transport within the state.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the relevant sections:
\[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is titled "Power to make rules." This section explicitly empowers the State Government to issue directions to the State Transport Authority (STA) and Regional Transport Authorities (RTA) regarding the fixing of fares, timings, and other matters necessary for the regulation of stage carriages, contract carriages, and public carriers. This provision is the primary source of the state's power to control road transport. } \\ \bullet & \text{Section 68 of the MV Act, 1988, deals with the constitution and functions of Transport Authorities (State and Regional). It outlines their roles but does not grant the overarching control power to the State Government itself. } \\ \bullet & \text{Section 69 of the MV Act, 1988, lays down the general provisions for making an application for a permit. } \\ \end{array}\]
Based on this analysis, Section 67 is the correct provision that confers the power to control road transport upon the State Government.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The correct answer is (A) because Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, directly provides the State Government with the power to control road transport by issuing directions to transport authorities.
Ahmadi.(as he then was) speaking for himself and PunchhiJ., endorsed the rec ommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)