1997 Supreme(SC) 1502

1997(10) Supreme 17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal & V.N. Khare, JJ.
M.C. Mehta -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985
Decided on 20-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties, M.S. Usgaonkar, Additional Solicitor General, Harish Salve, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Arun Jaitley, Swaraj Kaushal, Sr. Advocates, Mukul Mudgal, (M.C. Mehta) Advocate-In-person (NP), MS. Seema Midha, Wasim A. Qadri, A.D.N. Rao, Niranjana Singh, S.N. Sikka, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Anubha Jain, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajiv Nanda, Hardeep Singh Anand, R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, S.K. Srivastava, B.R. Kapur, Anis Ahmed Khan, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, D.K. Garg, Sanjeev Pabby, Vijay Panjwani, R.K. Maheshwari, Ms. Manju Bharti, Ranjit Kumar, R. Sasiprabhu, Manish Garg, Ashok Mathur, D.M. Nargolkar, Pradeep Misra, Ms. Niti Dikshit, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, D.S. Mehra, Saharya & Co. Advocates, Ejaz Maqbool, R.P. Gupta, K.K. Gupta, C.V.S. Rao, L.K. Pandey, S.B. Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parikh, Satish Aggarwal, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner, prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to be ensured by the authorities and for this the concerned authorities may mobilize the needed support by delegation of these powers to other authorities/officers and if need be even to responsible members of the public.
2. The control and regulation of traffic in National Capital Region and the National Capital Territory, Delhi, is a matter of paramount public safety and, therefore, is within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Claim of any right by an individual or even a few persons cannot override and must be subordinate to the larger public interest and this is how all provisions conferring any individual right have to be construed.

Headnote:(i) TRAFFIC CONTROL IN DELHI -Constitution of India-Articles 21, 32 and 142-Writ petition for proper management and control of traffic in NCR, NCT, Delhi-Growing menace of unregulated and disorderly traffic on roads-Remedial step required to curb-It is primarily for Executive to devise suitable measures and provide machinery for rigid enforcement of measures-Inaction of Executive-Writ petition pending since 1985-Menace continues to grow in perpetuation of this hazard to public safety-Obligation of this Court to give necessary directions which are required to be promptly implemented to achieve desired results.

       Held; the control and regulation of traffic in NCR and NCT, Delhi, is a matter of paramount public safety and, therefore, is evidently within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. That being so, the making of this order has become necessary and can no longer be delayed because of the obligation of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution which is invoked with the aid of Article 142 to give the necessary directions given today separately. (Para 14)

       Further held that there are adequate provisions in the existing law which, if properly enforced, would take care of the immediate problem and to a great extent eliminate the reasons which are the cause of the road accidents in NCR and NCT, Delhi. In view of the fact that the above officers expressed some doubt about the extent of powers of the concerned authorities to take adequate and suitable measures for speedy enforcement of these provisions and the remedial steps needed to curb the growing menace of un-regulated and disorderly traffic on the roads, we consider it expedient to clarify that position in this order with reference to the relevant provisions of the existing law. It is obvious that it is primarily for the Executive to devise suitable measures and provide the machinery for rigid enforcement of those measures to curb this menace. However, the inaction in this behalf of the Executive in spite of the fact that this writ petition is pending since 1985 and the menace instead of being controlled continues to grow in perpetuation of this hazard to public safety, it has become necessary for this Court to also issue certain directions which are required to be promptly implemented to achieve to desired result. It is needless to add that these directions are to remain effective till such time as necessary action in this behalf is taken by the concerned Executive authorities so that the continuance thereafter of these directions may not be necessary. (Para 2)

       (ii) TRAFFIC CONTROL-Interpretation of statutory provisions-Need for urgent measures to prevent any further delay in enforcement of existing provisions of law-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in addition to Police Act and Code of Criminal Procedure confer ample powers on authorities to take necessary steps-Power to suspend/cancel registration or permit of a motor vehicle if it poses threat or hazard to public safety-Exercise of-Claim of any right by an individual or even a few persons cannot override and must be subordinate to the larger public interest-Any requirement which is specified under the Act or by rules has to be fully complied with.

       Held, the existing provisions in the Act alone are sufficient to clothe the members of the police force and the transport authorities with ample powers to control and regulate the traffic in an appropriate manner os that no vehicle being used in a public place poses any danger to the public in any form. The requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of these provisions enacted in the Act. As earlier stated, we reach this conclusion even without reference to the general powers available to the police officers under the Police Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 12)

       (iii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 2(47) and 2(28)-Transport vehicle-Motor vehicle-Definitions contained in Section 2 cover all kinds of vehicles which ply on roads-They are all governed by provisions of the Act. (Para 4)

       (iv) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Chapter II-Licensing of drivers of motor vehicles-Power of licensing authority to disqualify any person from holding a driving licence or revoke such licence-Grounds for-Any person who poses any threat or is likely to cause nuisance or danger to public can be disqualified and his licence revoked. (Para 5)

       (v) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Chapter IV-Registration of motor vehicles-Any requirement specified under the Act or rules, to be fully complied with-Requirement of a specified category of motor vehicles being fitted with speed governors-Power to suspend registration-To be exercised even if condition of motor vehicle is found to be such that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to public-Power under Section 53 is wider-Basic test is the need to ensure that there is no danger to public by use of motor vehicle in a public place-Even if speed governors not prescribed for a particular class of motor vehicles-It is permissible for concerned authority to require fitting of speed governors in such vehicles.

       Held that the vehicle must be roadworthy in the sense that there is no mechanical defect therein to permit it being used as a motor vehicle. The necessity of complying with all the requirements makes it clear that any requirement which is specified under the Act or by the rules, has to be fully complied with and such a requirement would include the requirement of a specified category of motor vehicles being fitted with speed governors or such other devices as may be prescribed by law. Section 53 permits suspension of registration by the registering authority or other prescribed authority if it has reason to believe that any motor vehicle is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder. It is significant that this power to suspend the registration is available to the authority even if the condition of the motor vehicle is found to be such that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, irrespective of whether that is a specific requirement of the Act or the rules. The conferment of this power is for the obvious reason that a motor vehicle which is considered to be unsafe or which poses a danger to the public in a public place, if driven, should not be permitted to ply at a public place since the paramount need is public safety. It is, therefore, clear that even if speed governors are not prescribed for a particular class of motor vehicles by any requirement of the Act or the rules made thereunder, it is permissible for the concerned authority to require the fitting of the speed governors in such motor vehicles for the purpose of ensuring that there is no danger to the public by the use of such a motor vehicle in a public place. The power under Section 53 to this extent is wider. Section 53 read with Section 45 leaves no doubt about the amplitude of power of the concerned authorities whose duty it is to control and regulate the traffic in public places. The basic test to be applied by them for exercise of this power is the need to ensure that there is no danger to the public by use of any motor vehicle in a public place. (Para 6)

       It is indisputable that heavy and medium vehicles as well as light goods vehicles are in a class by themselves in so far as their potential to imperil public safety is concerned. There is, therefore, immediate need to take measures such as installation of speed control devices and ensuring that such vehicles are driven by authorised persons. Such measures, designed to further public safety, would undoubtedly be covered by the aforementioned provisions. (Para 7)

       (vi) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Chapter V-Control to transport vehicles-Necessity of permit-Cancellation and suspension of permits-Exercise of power of-Sections 84, 86 to be read with Section 56 provides for certificate of fitness of transport vehicle-Delegation of power of cancellation and suspension of permit-Proper.

       Held : Section 86 provides for cancellation and suspension of permits. The authorities are empowered to cancel or suspend the permit on the breach of any of the general conditions specified in Section 84 or any other condition when contained in the permit. Both these provisions are to be read with Section 56 which provides for certificate of fitness of transport vehicles. We may also refer to sub-section (4) of Section 86 which permits exercise of the power of cancellation and suspension of permit by the transport authority or any authority or person to whom such powers are duly delegated. The provision to enable delegation of these powers is obviously to make it workable in case the jurisdiction of the transport authority is so large, as in the case of NCR and NCT, Delhi, so that the need is of several persons to exercise this authority. (Para 8)

       (vii) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Chapter XIII-Offences, Penalties and procedure-Need for increase of maximum punishment-Power to seize and detain vehicle if reason to believe that same has been or is being used in contravention of specified provisions so as to pose a serious threat to public.

       Held : The maximum punishment provided in all these three Sections has ceased to have any efficacy in the present case and has, therefore, hardly any deterrent effect. We are informed that some time back Transport Commissioner, Delhi had recommended the raising of the maximum punishment but even the proposal for increase in the amount of maximum fine did not find favour with the Central Government. We have no doubt that the very thoughtful proposal made by the Transport Commissioner did not receive the attention it deserved at the level of the Central Government. Taking into account the realities and the chaotic state of road traffic in NCR and NCT, Delhi, we are surprised that any one sitting in Delhi and seeing for himself these conditions, thought it fit not to accept the recommendations made by the Transport Commissioner when in fact the need for increase of the maximum punishment, required in the existing circumstances, is even more. (Para 10)

       One of the aspects which was considered at length by us was the need to find some stringent and effective measure to at least bring to a halt the danger posed to the public by the continued use of a motor vehicle which is not roadworthy or was being used/driven dangerously. We find that Section 207 takes care of that situation by conferring power on any police officer or other person authorised in this behalf to seize and detain the vehicle if he has reason to believe that the same has been or is being used in contravention of the specified provisions so as to pose a serious threat to the public. The object of enacting such a provision clearly is that such a vehicle cannot be continued to ply once it is found that it poses danger to the public because, in addition to punishing the guilty person for the contraventions committed earlier, it is also important and necessary to prevent any further danger to the public by letting the vehicle continue to ply on a public place. (Para 11)

       (viii) TRAFFIC CONTROL IN DELHI-Enforcement of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Urgency of implementation of this order-Problem of inadequacy of personnel and other infrastructure-Power of delegation of authority-Held, concerned authorities would mobilize needed support by delegation of these powers to other authorities/officers and if need be even to responsible members of public-This order of this Court to be construed as empowering existing authorities to delegate their authority notwithstanding any administrative orders imposing any constraint or impediment on them, if any.

       Held : We are conscious of the fact that the inadequacy of personnel and other infrastructure may be a constraint which has impeded strict enforcement of these provisions so far. We have no doubt that after this clarification made by us in this order, the concerned authorities would mobilize the needed support by delegation of these powers to other authorities/officers and if need be even to responsible members of the public so that the resource crunch or inadequacy of infrastructure is not an impediment in enforcement of the law and the directions given today to obtain the desired results. No doubt, it is for the Government to make a realistic assessment of the strength of police force and Transport Department force to meet the felt need in this behalf but we consider it expedient to add that to overcome that deficiency/inaction, this order is to be construed as empowering the existing authorities to delegate their authority, whenever permissible under the law, to responsible persons in the manner they deem fit in the circumstances. In view of the urgency of implementation of these measures, we also make it clear that for the purpose of such delegation to responsible persons chosen even from the public, these authorities would not suffer from any constraint and this order is sufficient empowerment to them in this behalf notwithstanding any administrative orders imposing any impediment or constraint on them, if any. (Para 13)