Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- In these petitions the petitioners have questioned the validity of bye-law No. 3(1) of the Cycle Rickshaw Bye-Laws, 1960 framed under section 481 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Bye-law No. 3(1) reads as follows :

"3(1) No person shall keep or ply for hire a cycle rickshaw in Delhi unless he himself is the owner thereof and holds a licence granted in that behalf by the Commissioner on payment of the fee that may, from time to time, be fixed under sub-section (2) of section 430.

Provided that no person will be granted more than one such licence.

No person shall drive a cycle rickshaw for hire unless he holds a driving licence granted in that behalf by the Commissioner on payment of the fee that may, from time to time be fixed under sub-section (2) of section 430."

2. The petitioners are owners of cycle rickshaws. Some of them own two or more cycle rickshaws which are hired out by them to rickshaw pullers under a contract under which the rickshaw pullers have to pay some amount to the owners of the cycle rickshaws at the end of the day out of their earnings during the day. In order to eliminate the exploitation of rickshaw pullers by the owners of the cycle rickshaws the Delhi Municipal Corporation amended the Cycle-Rickshaw Bye-laws, 1960 by introducing bye-law No. 3. Under that bye-law only the owner of the cycle rickshaw can obtain a licence to keep a cycle rickshaw or to ply for hire and only one such licence would be issued to a person. By necessary implication it excludes persons who own a number of cycle rickshaws from applying for licences and prohibits the hiring out of the cycle rickshaw by the owner in favour of a rickshaw puller against payment of consideration. The contention of the petitioners is mainly dependent upon section 481 (1)L(5) of the Act which reads thus :

"481(1). Subject to the provisions of this Act the Corporation may, in addition to any bye-laws which it is empowered to make by any other provision of this Act, make bye-laws to provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-

…………………...............................

L. Bye-laws relating to miscellaneous matters -

………………………………...........

(5). the rendering necessary of licences -

(a) for the proprietors or drivers of hackneycarriages; cycle rickshaws, thelas and rehries kept or plying for hire or used for hawking articles;

...........................……………………"

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the above provision in the Act does not permit the Corporation to make a bye-law which prohibits the issue of licences to the owners of cycle rickshaws who are not themselves rickshaw pullers. It is also urged that the bye-law is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondent Corporation contends that the impugned bye law No. 3 is within the scope of the authority conferred on it by the Act to make the bye law in question and that it is not opposed to Article 19(1)(g).

4. The constitutional validity of a similar provision in the Punjab Cycle Rickshaws (Regulation of Licence) Act, 1976 (Punjab Act 41 of 1975) came up for consideration before this Court in Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union (Regd.) Ch. Town Hall, Amritsar v. State of Punjab (1981) 1 SCR 366: (AIR 1981 SC 14). In the course of its judgment the Court approved a scheme framed for providing financial assistance to the rickshaw pullers for acquiring cycle rickshaws. The provision of the Act which was impugned in that petition was, however, left untouched. On the same date this Court pronounced another judgment in Nanhu v. Delhi Administation, (1981) 1 SCR 373 in which the very same bye-law with which we are concerned in these cases came up for consideration. That case was disposed of by this Court by a short order which reads thus :

"We have disposed of today applications from cycle rickshaw pliers of Amritsar Municipality where a scheme has been worked out to help them become owners of cycle rickshaws.