Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
HARI OM GAUTAM.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/03/1987
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1339 1987 SCR (2) 714
1987 SCC (2) 397 JT 1987 (1) 795
1987 SCALE (1)622
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68(2)(r), 76 and 91
read with Rule 93 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940,
scope of--Whether the District Magistrate has the power to
appoint any area as a bus stand/ halting places and whether
the Town Area Committee has the power to levy fees, for the
use of the area so fixed as Bus stand, from the bus opera-
tors.
HEADNOTE:
Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contain
provisions relating to "control of transport vehicles".
Section 68 confers the power on the State Government to make
rules for the purpose of the said chapter. Clause (r) of
sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Act specifically con-
fers on the State Government without prejudice to the gener-
ally of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section
68 of the Act the power to frame rules regarding "prohibit-
ing the picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or
contract carriages at specified places or in specified areas
or at places other than duly notified stands or halting
places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage to stop
and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required
by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle
at a notified halting place." Section 76 empowers the State
Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the
State Government to determine parking places and halting
stations. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the
Act confers the power on the State Government specifically
to make rules regarding the maintenance and management of
parking places and stands and the fees, if any, which may be
charged for their use. Rule 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1940 similarly authorises the District
Magistrate to specify places within the limits of any munic-
ipality, notified area, town area or cantonment or within
such other limits as he may define where alone public serv-
ice vehicles or any specified class or classes of public
service vehicles and/or goods vehicles may stand indefinite-
ly or for such period as may be specified or public service
vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for
the taking up and setting down of passengers.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
715
The District Magistrate, Mathura by his order dated
22.5.1986 declared and determined plot Nos. 701 and 702 in
the Town Area, Baldev (Mathura) as a bus stand/halting place
of Baldev, where the stage carriages were directed to stand
for the purpose of allowing the passengers of Baldev to get
into and to get down from the stage carriages. Accordingly,
the Town Area Committee gave a contract to a private con-
tractor to collect the necessary fees payable by the bus
operators for making use of the area in question which was
within its jurisdiction for stopping their buses in accord-
ance with the order passed by the District Magistrate. The
appellant, a person providing transport service in the
District of Mathura, challenged the said order dated May 22,
1986 and the order of the Town Area Committee the levy fees
by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 501 of 1986 before the
High Court of Allahabad. The Writ Petition was dismissed by
the High Court on 8.9.1986. Hence the appeal by special
leave.
Allowing the appeal. the Court,
HELD: Rule 93 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 only
authorises the District Magistrate to exercise the powers
under Section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is
confined to the question of determination of parking places
and halting places which are not the same as bus stands
which can only be notified by the Regional Transport Author-
ity under section 68(2)(r) of the Act. [721B]
In the instant case no order has been passed by the
Regional Transport Authority, Mathura to determine the area
in question as a bus stand and the District Megistrate
cannot be equated with the Regional Transport Authority
constituted under the Act. Therefore, the order dated
22.5.1986 passed by the District Magistrate and also the
letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer of
Town Area Committee, Baldev to the President of the Union
requiring the bus operators to stop their buses at the bus
stand and to start from there and to permit the passengers
to get into and to get out of their buses at that bus stand
is not in order. [721C-E]
T.P. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tan/ore,
[1953] SCR 290; Municipal Board, Puskar v. State Transport
Authority, Rajasthan and Ors., [1903] Supp. 2 SCR 373; and
Municipal Council, Bhopal v. Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose
Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. & Anr.. [1974] 1 SCR 274,
followed.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APFELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 687 of
1987.
716
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.1986 of the Alla-
habad High Court in C.W.P. No. 501 of 1986.
Yogeshwar Prasad, Vishal Jeet, S.R. Srivastava and Ms.
Rachna Gupta for the Appellant.
S. Markandeya for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant is a person providing
transport service in the District of Mathura. He questioned
the validity of the Order dated May 22, 1986 passed by the
District Magistrate, Mathura declaring Plot Nos. 701 and 702
in the Town Area, Baldev (Mathura) as a bus stand/halting
place of Baldev, where the stage carriages were directed to
stand for the purpose of allowing the passengers of Baldev
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
to get into and to get down from the stage carriages in a
writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 501 of
1986 filed before the High Court of Allahabad under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. That petition was dis-
missed by the High Court on September 8, 1986. This appeal
by special leave is filed against the said decision of the
High Court.
The case of the appellant was that the District Magis-
trate had no power to appoint any area as a bus stand under
section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter
referred to as ’the Act’) under which he purported to pass
the impugned order. According to the appellant the power to
fix any area as a bus stand was vested in the Regional
Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the area and
not in the District Magistrate. The High Court was of the
opinion that section 76 of the Act conferred wide powers on
the District Magistrate ’to fix the places for the bus
stand/halting place’. It was further of the view that the
place where the appellant and other bus operators were asked
to stop their buses was only a halting place and hence the
order made under section 76 of the Act was unassailable. It
further observed that since the impugned order did not
specifically state that the bus operators could allow the
passengers to get down and pick up the passengers, it could
not be construed as an order fixing the area as a bus stand.
It should be stated at this stage that after the impugned
order was passed the Town Area Committee gave a contract to
a private contractor to collect that fees payable by the bus
operators for making use of the area in question which was
within its jurisdiction for stopping their buses in accord-
ance with the order passed by the
717
District Magistrate. After the Writ Petition was filed in
the High Court. the appellant had obtained an order of stay
preventing the Town Area Committee from collecting the fees.
Immediately after the Writ Petition was dismissed, the
Executive Officer of the Town Area Committee, Baldev (Mathu-
ra) wrote a letter on 10.10.1986 to the President of the
Mathura-Sadabad-Manikpur-Eta Motor Operators Union, Mathura
requiring all the bus operators to stop their buses at the
bus stand fixed by the District Magistrate. The letter reads
thus:
"President--Mathura-Sadabad-Manikpur-Eta
Motor Operators Union Mathura.
Letter No. 192/TAB/86
Dated: 10.10.86
Subject: Civil Miscellaneous Writ Peti-
tion No. 501/86
Shri Hari Om Gautam Versus
District Magis-
trate, Mathura.
Sir,
The aforesaid Writ Petition which was
filed against the order of District Magis-
trate, Mathura dated 22.5-1986 declaring the
old bus stand of T.A. Baldev (Mathura) as
authorised Bus stand/Halting place, has been
dismissed by High Court, Allahabad on 8.9.86
and the stay order concerned has also been
cancelled. Now the order of District Magis-
trate dated 22.5.86 has become effective
again. As a result of which all the buses of
the union are bound to stop and start from the
authorised Bus stand/Halting place of Baldev
allowing the passengers to get in and get down
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
from the bus and for booking at this very
stand and to pay standcommission to T.A.
Faithfully,
Sd/-8/10
illegible
Executive
Officer
(Seal)
Town Area Com-
mittee,
Baldev,
Mathura."
718
The relevant provisions of the Act which govern the case
are these. Section 68, which is in Chapter IV of the Act
containing the provisions relating to ’control of transport
vehicles’ confers the power on the State Government to make
rules for the purpose of the said chapter. Clause (r) of
sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Act specifically con-
fers on the State Government without prejudice to the gener-
ality of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of sec-
tion 68 of the Act the power to frame rules regarding or
’prohibiting the picking up or setting down of passengers by
stage or contract carriages at specified places or in speci-
fied areas or at places other than duly notified stands or
halting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage
to stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so
required by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the
vehicle at a notified halting place.’ Section 76 of the Act
reads thus:
"76. Parking places and halting stations--The
State Government or any authority authorised
in this behalf by the State Government may, in
consultation with the local authority having
jurisdiction in the area concerned, determine
places at which motor vehicles may stand
either indefinitely or for a specified period
of time, and may determine the places at which
public service vehicles may stop for a longer
time than is necessary for the taking up and
setting down of passengers."
Section 91 of the Act, which is in Chapter VI dealing
with ’control of traffic’, confers the power on the State
Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into
effect the provisions of Chapter VI. Clause (e) of sub-
section (2) of section 91 of the Act confers the power on
the State Government specifically to make rules regarding
the maintenance and management of parking places and stands
and the fees, if any, which may be charged for their use.
Section 76 is also in Chapter VI.
The first question which arises for consideration is
whether the area in which the bus operators were asked to
stop their buses is a bus stand or a halting place. The next
question is whether, if the said area is a bus stand, the
District Magistrate had the power to pass the impugned
order. It is not disputed before us that the District Magis-
trate had passed the impugned order in question with the
object of establishing a bus stand in the area in question.
That appears to be so from the order passed by the District
Magistrate and the letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the
Executive Officer of Baldev Town Area
719
Committee. We shall proceed on the basis that the District
Magistrate fixed the area as a bus stand. Regarding the
authority which had the power to notify an area as a bus
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
stand, there are at least three decisions of this Court. In
T.P. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore,
[1953] S.C.R. 290 this Court took the view that the expres-
sion ’duly notified stand’ in section 68(2) (r) of the Act
meant a stand duly notified by the Transport Authority and
not a stand notified by the municipality within whose juris-
diction the area was situated. This Court held that the
fixing and alteration of bus stands was not a purpose for-
eign to the ’control of transport vehicles’ which was gov-
erned by Chapter IV of the Act and, therefore, rules could
be framed by the State Government regarding the said subject
under section 68(2)(r) of the Act. At page 297 of the Re-
ports this Court has observed thus:
"The expression ’duly notified stands’ is not defined in the
Act, but it is reasonable to presume that a duly notified
stand must be one which is notified by the Transport Author-
ity and by none other."
It accordingly affirmed the view of the High Court
against whose judgment the said appeal had been filed that
section 76 of the Act which contained the provision relating
to parking places and halting places had no application to a
permanent bus stand which was a sort of radiating centre of
all the bus traffic in the town. A similar question arose
for consideration in Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State
Transport Authority, Rajasthan and Ors., [1963] Supp. 2
S.C.R. 373. Following the decision in T.B. Ibrahim’s case
(supra) this Court held in this case that section 76 of the
Act had nothing to do with the fixation or alteration of a
bus stand and the power to issue a notification fixing a bus
stand was implied in section 68(2)(r) of the Act. It further
held that the power under section 68(2)(r) of the Act could
be exercised only by the Regional Transport Authority having
jurisdiction over the area and therefore, the order passed
under that provision was open to revision under section 64-A
by the State Transport Authority. The last case to which
reference has to be made is Municipal Council, Bhopal v.
Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. &
Anr., [1974] 1 S.C.R. 274 where the two decisions referred
to above were applied for purposes of deciding the said
case. The facts of this case were these. The Municipal
Council of Bhopal had made bye-laws under the provisions of
section 358(7)(f) and (m) read with section 349 (ii) of the
Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Bye-law 2 provided
that no person incharge of a motor-bus plying for hire shall
for
720
the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers, park
or stop his bus anywhere within the limits of the municipal-
ity except at the Municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws
provided for a levy of a fee of Re. 1 for every 8 hours or
part thereof in respect of the use of the bus stand by such
buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment. The
respondent in that case filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the said bye-laws. The
High Court held that bye-law l(c), which defined the expres-
sion ’Municipal Bus Stand’ and bye-law 2 were valid but held
bye-laws 3 to 7 which provided for the payment of fee and
the’ giving of permit etc., as invalid and restrained the
Municipal Council from giving effect to those bye-laws in
any manner. In that case this Court affirmed the decision of
the High Court holding that the power to regulate or prohib-
it the use of municipal land as a halting place of vehicles
could not be used to compel people to use such land as
halting place. Such a power should be given specifically by
the statute and that the power to compel persons in charge
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
of motor buses to stop only at certain places for the pur-
pose of taking up or setting down passengers was a matter
which relating to motor traffic and that there was a specif-
ic provision in section 68(2)(r) of the Act for that pur-
pose. Accordingly this Court held that the bye-laws which
compelled persons in charge of motor buses to use the Munic-
ipal Bus Stand could not be passed by the Municipality. In
that case also the District Magistrate had declared the
Bhopal Municipal Bus Stand as a bus stand. The Municipal
Council contended before this Court that the District Magis-
trate had been authorised by the State Government under
section 76 of the Act to pass an order fixing the Municipal
Bus Stand as a bus stand for purposes of the Act. Rejecting
the said contention this Court held that the District Magis-
trate could not exercise the power of fixing a bus stand
under section 76 of the Act and that could be done only
under section 68(2)(r) of the Act. The Court further ob-
served that while the Municipal Corporation had no power to
compel persons plying motor buses for hire to use only the
Municipal Bus Stand for the purpose of taking up and setting
down passengers, there can be no objection to its providing
a bus stand for anybody who chooses to use it voluntarily
and to such person being required to pay for such use.
In the instant case reliance is placed by the learned
counsel for the Town Area Committee of Baldev on rule 93 of
the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 which authorises the
District Magistrate to specify places within the limits of
any municipality, notified area, town area or cantonment or
within such other limits as he may define where alone public
service vehicles or any specified class or classes of public
721
service vehicles and/or goods vehicles may stand indefinite-
ly or for such period as may be specified or public service
vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for
the taking up and setting down of passengers. We do not
think that the Town Area Committee can derive any assistance
from this rule. It only authorises the District Magistrate
to exercise the powers under section 76 of the Act which is
confined to the question of determination of parking places
and halting places which are not the same as bus stands
which can only be notified by the Regional Transport Author-
ity as held by this Court in T.B. Ibrahim’s case (supra). It
is not disputed that in the instant case no order has been
passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Mathura to
determine the area in question as a bus stand and the Dis-
trict Magistrate cannot be equated with the Regional Trans-
port Authority constituted under the Act. The High Court
was, therefore, in error in upholding the impugned order
passed by the District Magistrate. We, therefore, set aside
the judgment of the High Court and quash the order dated
22.5.1986 passed by the District Magistrate. We also quash
the letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer
of Town Area Committee, Baldev to the President of the Union
requiring the bus operators to stop their buses at the bus
stand and to start from there and to permit the passengers
to get into and to get out of their buses at that bus stand.
It is open to the Regional Transport Authority to take
action immediately for determining any convenient place or
places within the Town Area of Baldev (Mathura) as a bus
stand.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however,
be no order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal
allowed.
722
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7