Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
HANS RAJ KEHAR & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1974
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1975 AIR 389 1975 SCR (2) 916
1975 SCC (1) 40
CITATOR INFO :
R 1978 SC 209 (2)
D 1983 SC 383 (8,18,19)
R 1992 SC 443 (11,12,13,14)
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S.47-Amended by S. 43A of Motor
Vehicles (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1972- Scope of amendment.
Constitution of India, 1950-If amended section violative of
Art. 19(1)(f) and (g).
HEADNOTE:
For the purpose of making it easier to secure permits in
respect of non nationalised routes and to simplify the
procedure for this purpose s.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act
was amended by inserting s.43-A of the Motor Vehicles (U.P.
Amendment) Act, 1972. The section provides that, in the
case of non-nationalised routes. if the State Government is
of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant
permits to all eligible applicants it may by notification in
the gazette, issue a direction accordingly. A Notification
was issued by the State Government. The appellant,
questioned the validity of the section as well as of the
notification both of which were upheld by the High Court.
On appeal it was contended (i) that the State Government
issued the impugned notification without applying its mind,
as such a notification under s.43-A(2) could have been is-
sued only in public interest; (ii) that the deletion of
s.47(3) would have the effect of removing the limit on the
number of permits for intra-region routes but that fact
would not prevent the imposition of a limit for the number
of permits for inter-region routes; and (3) that the
impugned notification is violative of the rights of the
appellants under Art. 19)1)(f) and’ (g) of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is no infirmity in the impugned notification.
Sub-section 2 of s. 43A gives power to the State Government
to issue directions in respect of non-nationalised routes
and areas by means of notification in case the Government is
of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant
permits to all eligible applicants. The impugned
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
notification recites that the State Government is of the
opinion that it is in the public interest to grant permits
for non-nationalised routes and areas to all eligible
applicants. The notification thus ,gives all the
particulars which are required by the statute. The
notification removed the bar created by the limit on the
number of permits for buses which ,could be issued and
facilitates the issue of such permits to fresh applicants if
they satisfy the requirement of eligibility. Any measure
which results in larger number of buses operating on
various routes would necessarily eliminate or in any case
minimise long hours of waiting at the bus stands. [920 G;
921 A-B]
(2) There is no valid basis for the inference that if there
is no limit on the number of permits for intra-region
routes, limit on the number of permits for inter-region
routes would have to be imposed. The object of the impugned
notification is to liberalise the issue of permits and it is
difficult to see how such a liberal measure can have the
effect of introducing strictness or stringency in the matter
of grant of permits for inter-region routes. [921 E]
(3) There is no valid basis for holding that the impugned
provisions were violative of Art. 19. There is nothing in
the notification which prevents the appellants from
acquiring, holding and disposing of their property or
prevents them from practising any profession or from
carrying on any occupation. trade or business. The fact
that some others have also been enabled to obtain permit for
running buses cannot constitute a violation of the
appellants’ right founder the above two clauses of Art. 19
of the Constitution. [922 B; 921 G]
917
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2072 of
1972.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 17 /3rd
August, 1972 of the Allahabad High Court in C.W. Petn. No.
2438 of 1972.
S. K. Dhaon and S. M. Markandeya, for the appellants.
D. N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.-The short question which arises in this appeal
filed on certificate against the judgment of Allahabad High
Court is the validity of section 43A, inserted in the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972, and the
notification dated March 30, 1972 issued under that section.
The High Court upheld the validity of the section and the
notification.
The material part of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 (Act No, 4 of 1939), as it stood before the amendment
made by section 43A in Uttar Pradesh, read as under :
"(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in
considering an application for a stage
carriage permit, have regard to the following
matters, namely :-
(a) the interest of the public generally;
(b) the advantages to the public of the
service to be provided, including the saving
of time likely to be effected thereby and any
convenience arising from, journeys not being
broken;
(c) the adequacy of other passenger
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
transport services operating or likely to
operate in the near future, whether by road or
other means, between the places to be served;
(d) the benefit to any particular locality
or localities likely to be afforded by the
service;
(e) the operation by the applicant of other
transport services, including those in respect
of which applications from him for permits are
pending;
(f) the condition of the roads included in
the proposed route or area;
and shall also take into consideration any representations
made by persons already providing passenger transport faci-
lities by any means along or near the proposed route or area
or by any association representing persons interested in the
provision of road transport facilities recognised in this
behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or
police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the
proposed route or area lies-,
(2)
(3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to
the matters mentioned in sub-section (1), limit the number-
918
Of stage, carriages genarally, or of any specified. type for
which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or
in any specified. area or any specified route within the
region."
Section 43A has’ been inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Uttar
Pradesh Amendment) Act , 1972 (U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972).
The material part of section 43A reads as under :-
"(1) The State Government may issue such
directions of a general character as it may
consider necessary or expedient in the public
interest in respect of any matter relating, to
road transport to,, the State, Transport
Authority or to any Regional Transport
Authority, and such Transport Authority shall
give effect to all such directions.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, where the State
Government is of opinion that it is in the
public interest to grant stage carriage
permits (except in respect of routes or areas
for which schemes have been published
under section 68(C) or contract carriage permi
ts or public carrier permits to all
eligible applicants, it may by notification in
the Gazette issue a direction accordingly, and
thereupon all transport authorities as well as
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
constituted under section 64 shall proceed to
consider and decide all applications, appeals
and revisions in that behalf (including any
pending applications, appeals and revisions)
as if-
(a) in section 47,-
(i) for sub-section (1) the following sub-
section were substituted :
(i) A Regional, Transport Authority shall, in
considering an application for a stage car-
riage permit, have regard to the following
matters, namely-
(a) the interest of the public generally;
(b) the advantage to the public of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
service to, be,, provided,, including. the
saving of time likely to be effected thereby
and any convenience arising from journeys not
being broken;
(c) the benefit to any particular locality
or localities likely to be afforded by the
service;
and shall also take into. consideration any
representation made by any local authority or
police authority within whose jurisdiction any
part of the proposed route or area lies.’;
(ii) sub-section (3) were omitted;
919
The impugned notification dated March 30,
1972 roads as under "WHEREAS the state
government is of opinion that it is in the
public interest to grant stage carriage
permits (except in respect of routes or areas
for which schemes have been published under
section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939),
contract carriage permits and public carrier
permits to all eligible applicants;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power
conferred by section 43A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, the Governor is pleased to direct
that stage carriage permits (except in respect
of routes or areas aforesaid), contract
carriage permits and public carries permits
shall be granted according to the provision of
the said Act to all eligible applicants."
The petitioner-appellants hold stage carriage permits for
operating buses on various routes in Uttar Pradesh. It is
not necessary to set out any other fact because all that we
are concerned with is the validity of section 43A and the
notification issued thereunder.
The Motor Vehicles (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P.
Act No. 25 of 1972) received the assent of the President on
May 1, 1972 and was published in the U.P. Gazette of the
same date. Before that the Governor of U.P. had promulgated
U.P. Ordinance No. 9 of 1972. U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972 took
the place of that ordinance. The ordinance was repealed by
section 3 of the amending Act. The following Statement of
Objects and Reasons was given when introducing the Bill
which- after being passed by the legislature took the shape
of the amending Act:
"Operators engage in a race for securing
permits for stage carriages on non-
nationalised routes. Due to limitation on the
number of permits this business is controlled
by a few persons. Complaints in this regard
are made every other day. Therefore, with a
view to making it easier to secure permits in
respect of non-nationalised routes and to
introducing simplicity in procedure and to
providing greater employment and securing
equitable distribution thereof it was con-
sidered necessary to amend sections 47, 50,
55, 57 and 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939,
suitably. Accordingly, in the public interest
and with the aforesaid objects in view the
Motor Vehicles (Uttar Pradesh Amendment)
Ordinance, 1972 was promulgated. This Bill is
introduced to replace the said ordinance."
Perusal of section 43A shows that the object of the
legislature in inserting it in the Motor Vehicles Act was to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
make it easier to secure permits in respect of non-
nationalised routes. The section seeks to simplify the
procedure for this purpose. It has accordingly been pro-
vided that in the case of non-nationalised routes if the
State Government is of the opinion that it is in the public
interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants, it may
by notification in the Gazette issue a direction
accordingly. Once such notification is issued a number of
consequences which have been enumerated in the various
920
clauses of sub-section (2) of section-43A, follow. One
effect of such notification is that the transport
authorities shall proceed to consider and decide
applications, appeals and revisions (including pending
applications appeals ’and revisions) as if sub-section (3)
of section 47 were omitted. Under that sub-section a
Regional Transport Authority was required to limit the
number. of stage carriages generally, or of any specified
type for which stage carriage permits might be. granted in
the region or in any specified area or on any specified
route within the region. As a consequence of the omission
of that sub-section, it would be no longer necessary for the
Regional Transport Authority to put a limit on the number of
stage carriage permits. The result would be that it would
be permissible to issue any number of such permits having
regard to the interest of the public generally, the
advantage to the public of the service to be provided,
including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby
and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken
as also the benefit to any particular locality or localities
likely to be afforded by the service. The Regional
Transport Authority has also to take into consideration any
representations made by a local authority or police
authority within whose. jurisdiction any part of the
proposed route or area lies. Sub-section (1) of section 43A
clothes the State Government with power to issue directions
of a general character as it may consider necessary or
expedient in the public interest in respect of any matter
relating to road transport. The transport authorities have
been enjoined to give effect to all such directions. The
State Government in exercise of the power conferred
apparently by sub-section (2) of section 43A has issued the
impugned notification dated March 30, 1972 in respect of
routes or areas for which schemes have not been published
under section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to
the notification, contract carriage permits and public
carrier permits shall, except in respect of routes or areas
mentioned above, be granted according to the provisions of
the said Act to all eligible applicants.
It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the
State Government issued the impugned notification without
applying its mind, as such a notification under sub-section
(2) of section 43A could have been issued only in public
interest. We are unable to accede to this contention as we
find no such infirmity in the impugned notification. Sub-
section (2) of section 43A gives power to the State
Government to issue direction in respect of non-nationalised
routes and areas by means of notification in case that
Government is of the opinion that it is in the public
interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants. The
impugned notification recites that the State Government is
of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant
permits for non-nationalised routes and areas to all
eligible applicants. The notification thus gives all the
particulars which are required by the statute. It is no
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
doubt true that the State Government failed to file a return
in the High Court in support of its plea that the impugned
notification was issued because the Government was of the
opinion that it was in the public interest to grant permits
to all eligible applicants, but that omission, in our
opinion, is not very material as that fact is
921
self-evident from the notification. The notification
removes the bar created by the limit on the number of
permits for buses which could be issued and, facilitates the
issue of such permits to fresh applicants if they satisfy
the requirement of. eligibility. It hardly need much
argument to show that the larger number of buses operating
on different routes would be for the convenience and benefit
of the travelling public and as such would be in the public
interest. Any measure which results in larger number of
buses operating on various routes would necessarily
eliminate or in any case minimise long hours of waiting at
the bus stands. It would also relieve congestion and pro-
vide for quick and prompt transport service. Good transport
service is one of the basic requirements of a progressive
society. Prompt and quick transport service being a great
boon for those who travel, any measure which provides for
such an amenity is in the very nature of things in the
public interest.
Argument has also been advanced that the deletion of section
47(3) would have the effect of removing the limit on the
number of permits for intra-region routes but that fact
would not prevent the imposition of a limit for the number
of permits for inter-region routes. This argument has been
advanced in the context of the case of the appellants that
the impugned provisions discriminate in the matter of issue
of permits for intra-region routes and those for inter-
region routes and as such are violative of article 14 of the
Constitution. We arc not impressed by this argument for we
find no valid basis for the inference that if there is no
limit on the number of permits for intra-region routes,
limit on the number of permits for inter-region routes would
have to be imposed. The object of the impugned notification
is to liberalise the issue of permits and we fail to see as
to how such a liberal measure can have the effect of
introducing strictness or,, stringency in the matter of
grant of permits for inter-region routes. Assuming that a
different rule is applicable in the matter of inter-region
routes, the differentiation is based upon reasonable
classification. It is nobody’s case that the impugned
provision brings about discrimination in the matter of grant
of permits between applicants belonging to the same class.
The argument about the impugned provision being violative of
article 14 is wholly untenable.
The contention that the impugned notification is violative
of the rights of the appellants under article 19(1)(f) or
(g) of the Constitution is equally devoid of force. There
is nothing in the notification which prevents the appellants
from acquiring, holding and disposing of their property or
prevents them from practising any profession or from
carrying on any occupation. trade or business. The fact
that some others have also beer enabled to obtain permits
for running buses cannot constitute a violation of the
appellants, rights under the above two clauses of article 19
of the Constitution. The above provisions are not intended
to grant a kind of monopoly to a few bus operators to the
exclusion of other eligible persons. No right is guaranteed
to any private party by article 19 of the Constitution of
carrying on trade and business without competition from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
other eligible persons. Clause (g) of article 19(1) gives a
right to all citizens subject to article 19(6) to practise
any profession or to carry on any
922
occupation, trade or business. It is an enabling provision
and does not confer a right on those already practising a
profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business
to exclude and debar fresh eligible entrants from practising
that profession or from carrying on that occupation, trade
or business. The said provision is not intended to make any
profession, business or trade the exclusive preserve of a
few persons. We, therefore, find no valid basis for holding
that the impugned provisions are violative of article 19.
The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed
P.B.R.
923