Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- The petitioners in the writ petitions and appellants in the Civil Appeals are holders of contract carriage permits issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) carrying on business in the State of Rajasthan and other adjoining States. Under the said permits they are entitled to run the contract carriages throughout Rajasthan except on the notified routes. Some of them also own motor vehicles which are covered by permits issued under section 63(7) of the Act having the privilege of carrying passengers on cortract throughout India. In these Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals they have questioned the validity of the Notification dated 15-7-1975 issued by the State of Rajasthan under section 129-A of the Act empowering certain officers of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation*) to exercise in respect of all stage carriages and contract carriage on the notified routes under section 68-D (3) of the Act the powers that can be exercised under section 129-A of the Act by police officers who are empowered in that behalf. The Notification read as follows :

"RAJASTHAN RAJPATRA

Dated 7-8-1975

Home (Cr. X) Department

Notification

Jaipur, July 15, 1975.

O. O. 420. In exercise of the power conferred by section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) the State Government hereby further authorises the following persons to exercise the powers and to take or cause to be taken all the proper steps within their respective jurisdictions under the said scheme in respect of all the stage carriages and contract carriages plying on or in any notified route or in any notified area under section 68-D (3) of the said Act or in any portion, thereof namely :

S. No.Persons authorisedJurisidiction

1. Deputy ManagerGeneral (Traffic) Depot1. All Rajasthan

2. Assistant Managers2. Within the jurisdiction of their respective depot.

3. Traffic Inspectors3. Within the jurisdiction of their respective routes.

No. F. 1 (6) H/Unit-X-75 by order of Governor

Sd/- Raj Singh

Commissioner for Home/Secy. to the Government."

2. The petitioners/appellants contend that the officers of the Corporation named in the Notification who are very much interested in seeing that the Corporation earns much profit have been over-zealous in exercising the powers conferred on them under section 129-A of the Act and seizing and detaining the motor vehicles belonging to the petitioners/appellants contrary to law. The principal contention urged by the petitioners/ appellants is that it was not open to the State Government to appoint persons who are not officers of the Government as persons who could exercise the powers of seizure and detention of property of citizens under section 129-A of the Act. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 711 : (AIR 1985 SC 1651), it is contended that the appointment of the officers of the Corporation who are their rivals in motor transport business as officers entitled to exercise powers conferred under section 129-A of the Act was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. These Writ Petitions/Civil Appeals are opposed by the State Government and the Corporation. It is contended by the respondents that the impugned notification is issued only to protect the interests of the Corporation and in order to prevent the running of motor vehicles either as stage carriages or contract carriages along the routes over which the Corporation is exclusively entitled to operate its stage carriages under permits issued under Chapter IVA of the Act. They also contend that the appointment of the officers of the Corporation under section 129-A of the Act is not outside the scope of that section. In the course of the hearing it was submitted that the said powers would not be used against motor vehicles covered by permits issued under section 63(7) of the Act