A restriction imposed on a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is permissible if it is a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public safety, and if the law imposing such restriction provides sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power conferred thereunder.

Headnote:
BOMBAY POLICE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 33(1)(B) AND (C) - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - PUBLIC SAFETY - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) AND 19(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - VALIDITY OF SECTION 33(1)(B) AND (C) - GUIDELINES FOR EXERCISE OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are truck owners, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Police regulating the entry of heavy vehicles in Nagpur city during certain hours, arguing that it violated their fundamental right to trade and carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and that sections 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, were ultra vires the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned order did not constitute an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental right to trade and carry on business, as it was a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public safety, considering the increasing incidence of accidents involving heavy vehicles and school children. The court also held that section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act were not ultra vires the Constitution, as they provided sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power conferred thereunder.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order issued by the Commissioner of Police under section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, constituted an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental right to trade and carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. Whether sections 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, were ultra vires the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned order was a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public safety, as it was aimed at preventing danger, obstruction, and inconvenience to the public, particularly school children, due to the increasing incidence of accidents involving heavy vehicles. The court noted that the order did not impose a total prohibition on the plying of heavy vehicles, but only restricted their movement during certain peak hours. 2. The court held that section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act were not ultra vires the Constitution, as they provided sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power conferred thereunder. The court noted that Clause (b) of section 33(1) of the Act itself provided a guideline by authorizing the Commissioner of Police to issue orders to prevent danger, obstruction, or inconvenience to the public.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public safety and that sections 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act were not ultra vires the Constitution.

JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---A right to life is more precious than a right to trade or to carry on one's business and in case of conflict between the two, the former must prevail over the latter. The petitioners in this writ petition challenge the order of the Commissioner of Police dated 22-7-1988 issued under section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Act") regulating the entry of all kinds of heavy vehicles in the Nagpur city during certain hours. We had called upon the State to file its submissions. According to the written submissions filed on behalf of the State the necessity for issuing the impugned order arose looking to the growing incidence of accidents in the Nagpur city, the victims particularly being the school going children. A chart is given in para 8 of the written submissions giving the number of accidents which took place in Nagpur City by local trucks as well as outside trucks from 1985 onwards. A comparative chart is also given in para 8 to show that the growing incidence of accidents in the Nagpur city is curbed and is reduced after the impugned order regulating the traffic hours of the outside trucks was issued by the respondent No. 1.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order issued under section 33(1)(b), and (c) amounts to an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the said order is not saved by Article 19(6) which permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions upon the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) in the interest of general public. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that sections 33(1)(b) (c) are ultra vires of the Constitution because no guidelines are laid down under Clauses (b) and (c) of section 33(a) of the Act for the exercise of the power conferred there under upon the Commissioner. The above contentions are controverted on behalf of the respondents by the learned Government Pleader appearing for them.

3. In support of his submission that the impugned order issued by the Commissioner of Police constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) and in fact totally prohibits the exercise of such fundamental rights by them the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions :

(1) (Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118.

(2) (State of Madras v. V. G. Rao)2, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196.

(3) (Raghubir Singh v. Court of Wards, Ajmer another)3, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 373.

(4) (C.S.S. Motor Service v. Madras State)4, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 279.

(5) (Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P.)5, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 728.

(6) (In re Venugopal and others)6, A.I.R. 1954 Madras 981 (Note A).

(7) (S.D. Shetty v. K.D. Billimoria)7, A.I.R. 1959 Bom. 346 and.

(8) (State of Madras v. Murary Co.)8, A.I.R. 1965 Madras 301.

On the other hand to show that the restriction imposed under the impugned order of the Commissioner of Police constitutee a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, the learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision in the case of (Tirath Ram v. Registering Authority, J. K.)9, A.I.R. J K 141.

4. In appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary to see that the law under Article 19(6) of the Constitution Is by now well settled and it has been held by the Supreme Court that in imposing a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) it is open to the State in appropriate cases even to prohibit the exercise of fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In particular such a total prohibition has been upheld in the case of noxious or dangerous trades. See (Narendra Kumar v. Union of India)10, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 430, paras 8 to 14. It may, however, be seen in the instant case that by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(Bom) 309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY(Nagpur Bench)H.W. Dhabe M.S. Deshpande, JJ.Shyam others .... Petitioners.Versus Commissioner of Police another .... Respondents.Writ Petition No. 1946 of 1988, decided on 13-9-1988.Advocates appeared :G.Y. A.G. Gharote, for petitioners.M.P. Badar, G.P., for respondents.