Back
1982 Supreme(Kar) 93
Karnataka High Court
BANGALORE COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
COMMR.OF POLICE, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 03-22-82
W.P. : 11274 of 1982
B.S.KESHAVA IYENGAR, MOHANDAS N.HEADE
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to prohibit vehicular traffic must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant acts, and unauthorized prohibition without proper notification is illegal.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Prohibition of Vehicular Traffic - Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, Karnataka Traffic Control Act of 1960 - S. 74 of the 1939 Act, S. 3 of the 1960 Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the prohibition of vehicular traffic on Commercial Street, Bangalore city. The respondent had completely prohibited vehicular traffic on the street, leading to the petitioners' grievance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prohibition of vehicular traffic without proper notification under S. 74 of the 1939 Act or S. 3 of the 1960 Act was unauthorized and illegal. The notification produced by the respondent had not been published in the Karnataka Gazette, and the court declined to examine its validity before publication.
Issues: The main issue was the unauthorized prohibition of vehicular traffic without a proper notification under the relevant acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to prohibit vehicular traffic must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and the Karnataka Traffic Control Act of 1960. The court held that without a published notification, it was not proper to prohibit vehicular traffic as it existed prior to the specified date.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus to the respondent not to prohibit the movement of vehicular traffic on Commercial Street as it existed prior to the specified date except in accordance with law. The rule issued was made absolute, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) ON a prayer made by the petitioners for interim directions, this case was posted before me today for orders. But, as agreed to by both sides this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard.
( 2 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to forbear from prohibiting the vehicular traffic on the Commercial Street, Bangalore city.
( 3 ) PETITIONER in WP No 11274/ 82 is a company registered under the Companies Act. The company has been incorporated inter alia with the object of promoting the interests of the commercial community of Bangalore and the shop keepers of Commercial Street in particular. Petitioner in WP No. 11275 of 1982 is running business on the commercial Street under the name, and style of 'travellers Corner' dealing in travellers requirements. Petitioner in WP No. 11276 of 1982 is the owner and resident of a building situated on the Commerrial Street.
( 4 ) COMMERCIAL Strqet is a fashionable and busy shopping centre of the city. The width of the road is about 32 feet and the length is about 1373 feet. Prior to 15-3-1982, vehicular traffic was regulated by permitting entry of certain class of vehicles only from the, eastern end or Kamaraj Road. But, on and from' 15-3-1982, the respondent has completely prohibited all vehicular traffic on the said street. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have approached this Court for appropriate reliers.
( 5 ) THE, petitioners have alleged that either the State Government or the respondent has not so far published a notification in Karnataka Gazette prohibiting the movement of vehicular traffic as it existed prior to 15-3-1982. Among other grounds, the petitioners have urged that without a nptification in the Karnataka Gazette either under s. 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939 act) or under S. 3 of the Karnataka traffic Control Act of 1960 (Karnataka Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Act), the respondent or his subordinates cannot prevent the movement of vehicular traffic on the commercial Street as it existed prior to 15-3-1982.
( 6 ) AT the hearing of this case, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent produced before me a copy of the notification No. 9/81-82 dated 13-3-1982 purported to have been issued by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 74 of tho 1939 Act and S. 3 of the 1960 Act. Learned Advocate General very fairly and rightly submitted that that notification has not so far been published in the Karnataka Gazette though the same was to take effect from 15-3-1982 itself.
( 7 ) SRI Mohandas N. Hegde learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the respondent in prohibiting vehicular traffic as it existed prior to 15-3-1982 without the publication of a notification either under S. 74 of the 1939 Act or under S. 3 of the 1960 Act, was wholly unauthorised and illegal.
( 8 ) THE learned Advocate General does not dispute that if there is to be a total prohibition of vehicular traffic on a permanent basis, a notification under s. 74 of the 1939 Act or under S. 3 of the 1960 Act is necessary to be published and such prohibition can only take effect from a date to be specified in, the notification or from the date of the notification which ever is earlier. But, he contends that the notification issued by the Commissioner, though not published in Karnataka Gazette so far, should be read as one made under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act and the action already taken thereto sustained on that basis.
( 9 ) AN examination of the notification produced before me shows that the same has not been issued under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act. Apart from this, reading the entire, notification, I find it difficult to hold that the, said notification has been issued by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred
