1953 Supreme(SC) 111

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th November, 1953
M. PATANJALI SASTRI, CJI., M.C. MAHAJAN, S.R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN AND JAGANNADHA DAS, JJ.
Harnam Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
Shir. R. Choudhry and Shri A. K. Das Gupta, Advocates, instructed by Shri Sukumar Ghose, Agent, for Appellants; Shri M. C. Setalvad Attorney-General for India (Shri B. Sen, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. K. Bose, Agent, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act (1939) S. 42-VaIidity-Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 179.

       Held: (l) Rule 179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules which prescribes the minimum tariff for the different classes of taxis does not prohibit the charge of a rate below the prescribed minimum if the taxi owner so wishes. All that it enjoins is that a tariff higher than the fixed minimum cannot be charged and the hirer of a taxi on demand is bound to pay at that rate.

       (2) Introduction of small taxis at cheaper rates is not violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution; nor is there any violation of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution if discretion vested in Regional Transport Authority is exercised bona fide. - Constitution of India, Art. 14-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, S. 15 -Introduction of small testis at cheaper rates-No violation of Art. 14.

       Since the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act in 1940, taxis plying in the streets of Calcutta were required to be of not below 22 H.P. and not above 30 H.P. Rule 179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules prescribed the tariff for all such taxis. This was amended in 1944 increasing the rate of tariff, and this increased rate of tariff was maintained by a further notification issued on 13th January, 1951. In May, 1952 applications were invited from persons who had licenses for driving motor cabs or who possessed knowledge of motor mechanism, for the issue of permits for small motor taxi cabs of not below 10 H.P. and not above 19 H.P. Objections to the grant of such permits were also invited. The objections were heard by the Regional Transport Authority on 5th July, 1952 and were ultimately rejected and 48 permits for small taxis were issued. Rule 179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules was also amended by adding the following proviso:

       "Provided that in the case of small motor cabs of not exceeding 19 H. P., but not below 10 H. P., registered under the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 in the city of Calcutta or in the district of 24 Parganas the tariff on each occasion of hiring shall for a period of 8 months with effect from 1st May, 1952, be annas 8 for the 1st mile or part of a mile and annas 2 for every quarter of each subsequent mile."

       The constitutionality of this was challenged before the Calcutta High Court in an application for writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution as violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Constitution. Regarding Article 14, the High Court held that there was no violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution because the fixation of tariff regarding the two classes of taxis was based on rational classification. There was further appeal to the Supreme Court.

       Held: (dismissing the appeal) : "It has been repeatedly pointed out by this court that in construing Article 14 the courts should not adopt a doctrinaire approach which might well choke all beneficial legislation and that legislation which is based on a rational classification is permissible. A law applying to a class is constitutional if there is sufficient basis or reason for it. In other words, a statutory discrimination cannot be set aside as the denial of equal protection of the laws if any state of facts may reasonably be conceived to justify it. It is clear that it is in the interests and for the benefit of a section of the public that small taxis have been introduced and cheaper rates have been fixed having regard to the size horse power and expenses of running such cars. We are unable to se~ any unreasonableness in this classification or any discrimination which infringes the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention of Mr. Choudhry, therefore, that the introduction of smaller taxis at lesser tariff rates contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be upheld. " (Per Mahajan J). - (432) Article 19 (I) (g)-Does not guarantee monopoly-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, S. 42-Discretion vested in Regional Transport Authority exercised bonafide-No violation of Art. 19 (I) (g).

       Heid1: "Article 19 (1) (g) declares that all citizens have the right to practice any profession, to carryon any occupation, trade or business. Nobody has denied to the appellants the right to carryon their own occupation and to ply their taxis. This article does not guarantee a monopoly to a particular individual or association to any occupation and if other persons are also allowed the right to carryon the same occupation and an element of completion is introduced in the business, that does not, in the absence of any bad faith on the part of the authorities, amount to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution. Under the Motor Vehicles Act it is in the discretion of the RegioJ1al Transport Authority to issue permits at different rates of tariff to different classes of vehicles plying in the streets of Calcutta and if that power is exercised in a bona fide manner by the Regional Transport Authority for the benefit of the citizens of Calcutta, then the mere circumstance that by grant of licence at different tariff rates to holders of different taxis and different classes of vehicles some of the existing licence holders are affected cannot bring the case under Article 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution." (per Mahajan ].).