Back
High Court Of Calcutta
AMITAVA LALA
ALL BENGAL RICKSHAW UNION - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 9758 Of 1998
Decided On : 12/14/1999
CALCUTTA HACKNEY-CARRIAGE ACT - LICENCE - RENEWAL - POLICY DECISION - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE OR BUSINESS - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION - ROLE OF THE COURT IN POLICY DECISIONS - GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATION OF RICKSHAW PULLERS - WRIT PETITION DISPOSED OF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, representing a union and office bearers of hand rickshaw pullers in Calcutta, filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the respondents to issue and/or renew pullers' licenses pursuant to the Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act, and certiorari to quash an impugned order dated 4th May, 1958, issued by the respondent No. 3 in respect of issuance of fresh and/or renewed licenses to rickshaw pullers.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act, 1919, provides for licensing of rickshaw pullers, and as many as 24,000 rickshaw pullers obtained driving licenses under the Act. 2. Since 1950, the number of licensed rickshaw pullers has been decreasing due to the adamant attitude of the registering authority in not renewing pullers' licenses or issuing fresh licenses. 3. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Department, Calcutta, was based on the Government's policy of abolishing slow-moving vehicles, the observation of the National Human Rights Commission describing rickshaw pulling as inhuman, the reduction in the number of pullers' licenses due to non-renewal, the traffic problems caused by slow-moving vehicles, and the lack of applications from rickshaw pullers for replacing hand-pulled rickshaws with Auto-rickshaws. 4. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it was based on policy decisions taken outside the framework of the law and without considering the individual circumstances of the rickshaw pullers. 5. The Court also held that the writ petition was maintainable as the association of rickshaw pullers was directly affected by the impugned order and had a legitimate interest in representing the rights of its members.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic Department, Calcutta, was sustainable. 2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it was based on policy decisions taken outside the framework of the law and without considering the individual circumstances of the rickshaw pullers. The Court emphasized that policy decisions cannot override the law and that the Court has the power to interfere with policy decisions if they are demonstratively capricious, arbitrary, discriminatory, infringe any Statute, or violate the provisions of the Constitution. 2. The Court also held that the writ petition was maintainable as the association of rickshaw pullers was directly affected by the impugned order and had a legitimate interest in representing the rights of its members.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the State authority to form an appropriate high-powered committee to address the issue of rehabilitation of rickshaw pullers. The committee was directed to consider various options for rehabilitation, including financial assistance, job training, and relocation to their home states. The Court also allowed the movement of rickshaw pullers in restricted areas for tourism purposes.
( 1 ) THE petitioners are representing a union and the office bearers of the hand rickshaw pullers in the city of Calcutta asking relief in the nature of writ of mandamus as to the nature thereof commending the respondents to issue and/or renew pullers' licence to the applicants in pursuant to the provisions of Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act within a short period from the date of the application upon rejecting the impugned order dated 4th May, 1998. In addition thereto the petitioners also sought relief in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash, rescind or to recall such impugned order dated 4th May, 1958 issued by the respondent No. 3 in respect of issuance of fresh and/or renewed licence to the pullers of rickshaws and other consequential reliefsin the nature of the writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any penal action against the pullers for not having licence.
( 2 ) THE petitioner contended that at present in Calcutta City about 6,000 licensed rickshaws are plying rickshaws having prior licence by the Hackney-Carriage Department. These licences were issued by the authority before 1950 and since then no single licence was issued to any person pursuant to their respective applications.
( 3 ) THE Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act provides for licence for pulling the rickshaw and pursuant to the same as many as 24,000 rickshaw pullers obtained driving licence from the licensing authority under Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act, 1919.
( 4 ) SINCE 1950 the bearer licences are decreasing day by day due to adament attitude of the registering authority in not renewing the pullers' licence and/or issuing fresh licence on the ground of death and physical inability.
( 5 ) ON one hand they are issuing fresh licence to the owner by renewing their old licences when on the other hand provoking the rickshaw pullers to run the same without licence by refusing grant of licence.
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the authority concerned are taking double stand in respect of issuance of the pullers' licence with the owner of the rickshaws. Therefore, ultimate sufferer is also the owner of the rickshaw because without the appropriate pullers' licence the rickshaws cannot be pulled by the owners and in such circumstances rickshaws are ceased by the police authorities. They are destroying the rickshaws and taking measures as against the pullers.
( 7 ) UNDER Sections 35 and 36 of the Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act, 1919 the authorities have been empowered to take penal action against both owner and puller for not having the pullers' licence.
( 8 ) SEVERAL representations were made but all are in vain. By such process the strength of fresh or renewed licensed rickshaw pullers have come down to 1700 from 24,000 as aforesaid.
( 9 ) THEY further contended that this is one of the convenient and essential mode of transport in the city of Calcutta. Poorer sections of the people are involved in this profession. The pullers are directly and indirectly involved and depending upon the earnings from the rickshaws. Several hundred families are depending thereon. The Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act, 1919 has not been repealed and still in force. The pullers are entitled to get the necessary licences under this Act in order to ply the rickshaws in the city of Calcutta and Howrah wherever the law is applicable.
( 10 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the refusal to issue licence is clear interference with the trade and business of the section of people in violation of the Article 19 (1) of the Constitution.
( 11 ) THE petitioner contended that there is ample power to prosecute against the puller for not having licence but there is no such cause of non-supplying or renewing the licence under the Act.
( 12 ) EARLIER writ petition was initiated. An order was passed for consideration of all the aspects by the appropriate administative authority specially by an order in connection with W. P. No. 3262 of 1998. Pursuant to such orde
AI
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
