1. Challenge to a government notification prohibiting private transport operators from a specific route under the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and allowing only state-run vehicles. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 243
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Kumaon Motor Owners Union Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 486 and 487 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. Dutta, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for appellants; Mr. K. L. Misra, Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for Respondent. 787
Advocates:
B.DUTTA, G.S.PATHAK, J.B.DADACHAN, K.L.MISHRA, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.RANA, Ravindra Narayan
B.DUTTA, G.S.PATHAK, J.B.DADACHAN, K.L.MISHRA, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.RANA, Ravindra Narayan
Emergency legislation enacted for national security with an emphatic overriding clause prevails over general statutes. Prohibiting private operators from a specific route under such rules does not constitute the destruction of a commercial undertaking or a mala fide attempt to avoid statutory compensation.
Headnote:(A) Defence of India Act, 1962 - Sections 43 and 44 - Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule 131(2)(gg) and (i) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Chapter IV-A and Section 68-B - Prohibition of private transport operators on a specific route - Power of State Government to restrict carriage of persons or goods - Conflict between emergency legislation and general law - Overriding effect of emergency Act - Whether such order amounts to destruction of commercial undertaking or is mala fide - Satisfaction of the government as a condition precedent. (Paras 9-19)
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Conflict between two statutes - Where an emergency Act is passed to meet a grave national emergency and contains emphatic overriding language, it shall prevail over a general statute, even if the general statute contains a non-obstante clause. (Paras 11-13)
(C) Administrative Law - Mala fides - If an order is passed after careful consideration of security reports over a prolonged period, it cannot be termed mala fide or a device to avoid statutory compensation. (Para 17)
(D) Administrative Law - Section 44 of the Act - Interference with ordinary avocation of life and enjoyment of property must be as little as possible; burden is on the challenger to show that a less restrictive measure would have sufficed. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
The State Government issued a notification prohibiting private operators from plying vehicles on a specific border route, allowing only government-owned vehicles to operate there, citing national security and the presence of subversive elements. The private operators challenged the order, alleging it was a mala fide attempt to avoid paying compensation required under the Motor Vehicles Act for nationalization of routes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prohibition of vehicles under the Rules necessarily includes the prohibition of the persons plying them. The emergency Act prevails over the Motor Vehicles Act due to its purpose and emphatic language. The order did not destroy the commercial undertaking as it only affected one route. No mala fides were found as the decision followed years of security reports.
Issues: Whether the State Government had the power to prohibit private operators under the Rules; whether the emergency Act overrides the compensation provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act; whether the order was mala fide or violated the principle of minimum interference with property.
Ratio Decidendi: Emergency legislation enacted for national security with an emphatic overriding clause prevails over general statutes. A restriction on a single route does not constitute the destruction of a commercial undertaking. The burden of proving that a less restrictive measure could have achieved the security objective lies with the aggrieved party.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the notification exceeded powers under Rule 131, was mala fide to avoid statutory compensation, contravened Section 44 of the Defence of India Act, or lacked necessary satisfaction. (Para 3 )
3. The court found the prohibition applied to operators, emergency legislation overrode the Motor Vehicles Act, and security concerns justified the order without mala fides or excessive interference. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Emergency legislation passed for national security prevails over inconsistent provisions of general statutes, and prohibitions on vehicle carriage necessarily extend to the persons plying those vehicles. (Para 10 , 12 )
5. Appeals dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. (Para 20 )
6. Does a rule prohibiting the carriage of persons or goods by certain vehicles apply to the operators of those vehicles?
Yes. The court held that vehicles are inanimate objects, and any prohibition or restriction on their use must necessarily be addressed to and apply to the persons plying those vehicles. (Para 10 )
7. Which statute prevails when an emergency act conflicts with a general statute?
The emergency legislation prevails. The court reasoned that such acts are passed to meet grave national emergencies and contain emphatic overriding clauses that supersede inconsistent provisions of other enactments. (Para 12 , 14 )
8. Does prohibiting a private operator from plying vehicles on a specific route amount to the destruction of their commercial undertaking?
No. Prohibiting a specific route does not destroy an undertaking if the operator continues on other routes, nor does it constitute taking over assets; it merely reduces profit-making capacity. (Para 15 )
9. How is the requirement to interfere as little as possible with ordinary life under Section 44 of the Defence of India Act evaluated?
The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that a less restrictive measure would have sufficiently met the needs of the situation to prove the order was excessive. (Para 18 )
10. Can the government designate state-run vehicles to operate on a route after prohibiting private operators under the same rules?
Yes. Rule 131(2)(i) is complementary to prohibition clauses, allowing the government to make necessary provisions to fill the vacuum in transport services to ensure national security and public safety. (Para 16 )
Judgement
WANCHOO, J. : These two appeals on certificates granted by the Allahabad High Court raise common questions and will be deal with together. The appellant, Kumaon Motor Owners Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as the union) was established in 1939 and had at the date of the writ petitions, 330 members all of whom owned transport vehicles. These members have public carrier permits as well as stage carriage permits, which are in force in the Kumaon region except on certain notified routes. The permits of the various members of the union are valid upto various dates falling in the years 1966 and 1967.
2. On August 17, 1964, the State Government purporting to exercise powers under Cls. (gg) and (i) of sub-rule (2) of R. 131 of the DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES , 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued a notification by which it was directed that with effect from October 1, 1964, no private operators shall ply any vehicle or class of vehicles for the carriage of persons or goods on, and no vehicles or class of vehicles operated by the private operators shall pass through, Tanakpur-Dharchula route of Kumaon region . It was further directed in the notification that on this route, the U. P. Government Roadways vehicles alone shall ply for the carriage of passengers and goods. The result of this notification was to stop plying of all vehicles belonging to the members of the union on the route in question and this led to the filing of the two petitions in the High Court. The union was party to both the petitions, which were in the same terms.
3. In the petitions the appellants challenged the notification of August 17, 1964, and this challenge was based on four grounds. In the first place, it was contended that no order of the kind passed on August 17, 1964 could be passed under R. 131 (2) (gg) and (i). In the second place, it was contended that the U. P. Government was contemplating nationalisation of this route in the Kumaon region for a long time prior to August 1964. Eventually, however, instead of proceeding with the scheme of nationalisation which would have necessitated payment of compensation to operators plying in the region, the Government decided to circumvent the provisions of Ch. IV- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (No. 4 of 1939) and introduced nationalisation through the device of an order under Cls. (gg) and (i) of R. 131 (2) of the Rules. So it was contended that the action of the State Government in passing the challenged order was mala fide. Thirdly, it was contended that S. 44 of the Defence of India Act, No. 51 of 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been contravened by the order. Lastly, the contention was that the satisfaction necessary for passing the order under the Act and the Rules had not been shown by the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government and therefore the condition precedent to the passing of such an order was absent.
4. The petitions were opposed on behalf of the State Government. It was not disputed that at one time prior to August 1964 the State Government had thought of nationalising this route and this matter was under consideration for sometime since 1962. But the State Government justified the passing of the impugned order on the ground that since 1960 reports had started coming in from the State Intelligence Department that certain anti-national and subversive elements were infiltrating the transport organisation and were exercising influence over the drivers, employees and other private operators of the union. As far back as October 1960, the Deputy Commissioner, Almora had sent a report to Government that it was necessary in the interest of national security that no new routes in Pithoragarh should be given for operation to the union and that their operation should be limited to Almora proper. Thereupon in a meeting of high officials on November 14, 1960, it was decided that the Deputy Inspector General Intelligence should supply the Transport Commissioner wi
