Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO
State Of A.P., Home Dept. - Appellant
Versus
Mini Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 04-27-01
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 19 and 14 - Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 - Section 21 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 2 (22), 2 (25), 2 (29), 67, 73, 86 and 84 – Traffic regulation – No Entry - Said Act reads as follow power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order - Commissioner of City Police from time to time make rules not inconsistent with this act in respect of following - Such rules shall in cases of clauses (b) and (c) be subject to control of government and with regard to remaining clauses sanction of government shall be obtained prior to enforcement of rules regulating traffic of all kinds in public street or public places and regulating use of streets and public places by persons walking, driving, cycling or accompanying or leading cattle with a view to prevent danger, inconvenience or obstruction to public - In any event submits that such prohibition is permissible having been in compass with traffic regulation - Reliance in this connection has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in Quarry Owners association - Learned Advocate General would contend that as impugned notification has been issued by way of subordinate legislation for said purpose neither any opportunity of hearing is required to be given to operators nor any public opinion or expert opinion is required to be obtained - According to learned Advocate-General as said notification does not suffer from any malice or lack of application of mind on part of Commissioner same could not have been set aside by learned single Judge - Held, We should interpret words of Constitution on same principle of interpretation as one applies to an ordinary law but these very principles of interpretation compel one to take into account nature and scope of Act which requires interpretation - A Constitution is mechanism under which laws are to be made and not merely an Act which declares what law is to be - It is also well settled that a Constitution must not be construed in any narrow or pedantic sense and that construction which is most beneficial to widest possible amplitude of its power must be adopted - An exclusionary clause in any of entries should be strictly and therefore narrowly construed - No entry should however be so read as not to rob it of entire content - A broad and liberal spirit should therefore inspire those whose duty it is to interpret Constitution and courts are not free to stretch or to pervert language of an enactment in interest of any legal or constitutional theory - Constitutional adjudication is not strengthened by such an attempt but it must seek to declare law but it must not try to give meaning on theory of what law should be but it must so look upon a Constitution that it is a living and organic thing and must adopt itself to changing situations and pattern in which it has to be interpreted – Order accordingly.
( 1 ) THESE Writ Appeals are directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in w. P. Nos. 511, 539 and 676 of 2001 respectively whereby and whereunder the notification issued by the Commissioner of police, Hyderabad dated 15-1-2001 prohibiting the movement of Mini Door cabs (seven seater auto-rickshaws) within the twin cities of Hyderabad and secunderabad is set aside.
( 2 ) THE notification dated 15-1-2001 issued by the Commissioner of Police in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 21 (l) (b) of the hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") which is called in question before the learned Single Judge reads thus: in exercise of the powers conferred upon me u/s. 21 (l) (b) of Hyderabad city Police Act, I,p. Ramulu, IPS, commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Secunderabad do hereby notify for the information of the public in general and the 7 seater auto operators in particular, that the following restrictions are imposed on the movement of the 7 seater auto-rickshaws for the maintenance of safe and free flow of traffic, prevention of danger, obstruction and inconvenience to the public. The movement of 7 seater auto-rickshaws is prohibited in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad for all the 24 hours and they should not enter the city beyond the following areas. (1) Lunger House (2) Toli Chowki (3) Moghal ka nala (4) Tadban (Bangalore Road - NH 7) (5) Raidurg Centre (6) Chandrayangutta x Roads (7) Rajiv Gandhi Statue, Dilsukh nagar/i. S. Sadan X Roads (8) Habsiguda X Roads (9) Lothkunta (10) Erragadda X Roads. (11) Old Airport, Bowenpally/ bowenpally Checkpost (12) Bollaram X Roads. (13) T. V. Station, Ramanthapur. The Notification will not affect carriers involved in essential services declared by the Government from time to time. This notification will come into force from 16-1-2001.
( 3 ) SECTION 21 (l) (b) of the said Act reads as follows:power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order: the Commissioner of City Police, hyderabad may, from time to time, make rules not inconsistent with this act in respect of the following. Such rules shall, in cases of clauses (b) and (c) be subject to the control of the government and with regard to the remaining clauses, sanction of the government shall be obtained prior to the enforcement of rules. (B) regulating traffic of all kinds, in public street or public places, and regulating the use of streets and public places by persons walking, driving, cycling or accompanying or leading cattle with a view to prevent danger, inconvenience or obstruction to the public.
( 4 ) TWO principal questions which arise for consideration in these appeals consequent upon declaring the said notification to be ultra vires by the learned single Judge by reason of the judgment impugned herein are: (1) Whether regulation of traffic of all kinds would include prohibition? (2) Whether for the purpose of examining the constitutionality of the impugned notification, this court, exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can look into the reasons therefor?
( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge, inter alia, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Himatlal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of police, Ahmedabad and another held that (A) having regard to the phraseology used in Section 21 (l) (b) of the said Act, regulation would not include prohibition, (B) before issuing the aforementioned notification, the Commissioner of Police ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the operators and also ought to have obtained public opinion as also the expert opinion therefor and (c) there was no sufficient material for arriving at his satisfaction by the Commissioner to issue the impugned notification.
( 6 ) MR. T. Anantababu, learned Advocate general would submit that, in the first place, having regard to the restrictions imposed by reason of the impugne
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
