2022 Supreme(Pat) 209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, S. Kumar, JJ.
Bihar Truck Owner Association Having Its Office At Shiv Puram Road No. -1, Vijay Nagar Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna - Appellant
Vs.
Versus
The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4310, 4217, 4223, 4296, 4734, 4981, 5470, 7926 of 2021 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1133, 3179 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2022

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 115 – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 – Regulation/Restriction on movement of goods – In order to strike down a delegated legislation as arbitrary it has to be established that there is manifest arbitrariness – Expression "arbitrarily" means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on will alone – Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud – It has a positive concept – Equality cannot be claimed in illegality and cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner – Impugned notification dated 16.12.2020 and consequential communication do not meet standard of reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved and reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia imposed by Article 14 – Ban solely based on type of goods being carried in vehicles with fourteen wheels or above or restricted to a carriage up to a certain height in certain specified vehicles cannot be stated to meet nexus of protection of roadways and purported loss of revenue caused, due to damage to bridges etc. – Record does not reflect any cogent material that may form basis of issuing such a notification spread all over State and that too on all Highways – Restriction of petitioners' right in totality cannot be based entirely on three communications unsubstantiated by any scientific study or data – Impugned notification appears to be, though prompted, without any application of mind or proper appreciation and application of MV Act in enforcing the provision, checking alleged malpractices of overloading vehicle(s) of such goods – This vitiates both decision and decision-making process as any conclusive cogent material did not support it – Ground of arbitrariness is not a separate ground within Indian Law – It is subsumed by Article 14 – One must satisfy non-arbitrariness for any law to pass muster. (Paras 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63 and 64)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 115 read with Sections 110(1) and 111 – Control of Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 – Section 35 – Constitution of India – Article 301 – Regulation/Restriction on movement of goods – Power to prohibit or restrict, subject to such exception and conditions, is regarding-(a) driving of a motor vehicle; (b) of any specified class; (c) description; (d) use of trailer; (e) in any specified area or specified road – Power to restrict and prohibit is specific only to a motor vehicle, be it of whatever description, but not goods carried by such vehicle – That power rests only with State Government/Regional Transport Authority issuing permit for carriage of goods – Transport Authority, a creation of Statute, is an authority independent of State – As such, impugned action is totally contrary to law and is not sustainable in law – Rule making power in the Act enables both Centre and State to do so under each chapter and such power must be exercised in that context – Control of weight on roads is regulated by Central Government which has issued notification in 2018 in this regard – Attempt of State to regulate weight goes against division of power set out in the Act – Prohibitive restrictions imposed by impugned notification, particularly reference to restriction on sand and stone chips, are conclusively against Act's nature, object, and scheme – Complete ban in present case cannot be saved as a reasonable restriction as it infringes directly and almost entirely on freedom of trade and profession enshrined under Article 19 – Non-restriction of transportation of sand and stone chips via vehicles with less than 14 wheels is not a ground to state that such right has not been infringed as size and scale of transportation so carried out greatly impacts economies of particular work being undertaken – Impugned notification is also in contravention of Section 35 of Control of Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 – Power of Section 115 of MV Act cannot be stated to be wider than Article 301 of Constitution of India and cannot facilitate a ban on interstate traffic – Impugned notification is not saved by reasonable permissible restrictions under Article 19 – Impugned notification dated 16.12.2020 issued by Secretary to the Government, Transport Department, Government of Bihar and all consequential action, including communication dated 17.12.2020 issued by Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, quashed – All writ application are allowed. (Paras 74 to 81, 95, 112, 130, 132, 135 and 138)

Interpretation of Statute – Headings prefixed to sections or set of sections in some modern statutes are regarded as preambles to those sections – They cannot control plain words of Statute but they may explain ambiguous words – If there is any doubt in interpretation of words in the section, heading certainly helps us to resolve that doubt. (Para 79)

Governance – Duty of State is to govern – Governance includes implementation of statutes in existence – Failure of Government to have provisions of a statute implemented amounts to failure in governance – This failure in governance by a Government cannot be permitted to be condoned by incorporating such amendments, resulting in condoning misgovernance. (Para 115)