Back
1983 Supreme(Cal) 60
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
D.K. SEN, J.
In re: Satya Ranjan Nandi & other
Decided on : 12.3.1983
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, S. Ganguly, Amitava Ghosh for petitioner.
D.P. Majumdar, Miss S. Majumdar for Municipality.
Mrs. Mukti Maitra, Indrajit Sen, Miss Shyamali Benerjee, B. Biswas for State.
The power and jurisdiction of municipalities to issue licenses under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, and the validity of such licenses, even if they do not explicitly mention the Act, provided they fulfill the requirements of the Act.
Headnote:
CALCUTTA HACKNEY CARRIAGE ACT, 1919 - SECTION 2, 17, 32, 70 - BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1932 - SECTION 173 - LICENSES - RICKSHAWS - UNLICENSED RICKSHAWS - SEIZURE - RESTRICTIONS ON PLYING - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATIONS - POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES TO ISSUE LICENSES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, rickshaw owners in South Dum Dum Municipality, claimed to be registered and licensed by the Municipality under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. However, the Government issued a Notification prohibiting unlicensed rickshaws from plying in Calcutta and restricting licensed rickshaws from plying on certain roads. Petitioners contended that their valid licenses entitled them to ply their rickshaws in the specified area and challenged the Notification and the seizure of their rickshaws.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Municipality had the power and jurisdiction to issue licenses under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, and had issued such licenses to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners, on the strength of these licenses, were entitled to ply their rickshaws within the statutory area of Calcutta, and the police could not treat their rickshaws as unlicensed or seize them on that ground. 3. The Court refrained from commenting on the validity of Notifications issued during the pendency of the application, leaving it open for the parties to contest them in further proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Municipality had the authority to issue licenses under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, and whether such licenses were issued to the petitioners. 2. Whether the petitioners, with valid licenses, could be restricted from plying their rickshaws in Calcutta, and whether the seizure of their rickshaws on the ground of being unlicensed was justified. 3. The validity of Notifications issued during the pendency of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, and the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, along with the Notifications and by-laws issued thereunder. 2. It held that the licenses issued by the Municipality, though not explicitly mentioning the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, fulfilled the requirements of the Act and were valid licenses issued under its authority. 3. The Court emphasized that the Municipality's power to issue licenses under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, was not affected by the prohibition against levying multiple taxes under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. 4. It also clarified that the mere absence of a specific mention of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, in the licenses did not render them invalid, as the act of a public servant must be ascribed to an existing authority under which it would have validity.
Final Decision: The Court directed the respondents not to consider the petitioners' rickshaws as unlicensed within the meaning of the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919, and to release any seized rickshaws with valid licenses issued by the South Dum Dum Municipality. The Court stayed the operation of the order for two weeks regarding the plying of rickshaws beyond Marhatta Ditch in Calcutta.
1. Satya Ranjan Nandi and eight-two other persons, the petitioners in this application, claim to be the owners of rickshaws kept or garag within the South Dum Dum Municipality. The petitioners further claimed to be registered as such owners by the said Municipality and allege that they have been issued licences in respect of their rickshaws by the Municipality.
2. On or about the 22nd March 1982, the Government of West Bengal issued a Notification as follows:-
"It is again notified for information of all concerned that in respect of movement of rickshaws on city roads, the following decisions have been taken to ease traffic congestion:-
(i) Unlicensed rickshaws will not be allowed to ply in the city of Calcutta.
(ii) Licensed rickshaws will not be allowed to ply or remain standing on the following roads on all hours of the day:-
(a) The, entire stretch from the Shyambazar 5 point crossing to Lenin Sarani along Bhupen Bose Avenue, Jatindra Mohan Avenue and Chittaranjan Avenue.
(b) The entire stretch of Rabindra Sarani.
(c) The entire stretch of Bidhan Sarani.
Enforcement of the decisions has commenced with effect from the 22nd March, 1982."
3. The petitioners allege that since the issue of the said Notification there has been a concerted drive by the Police to prevent plying of rickshaws in Calcutta and rickshaws have been and are being seized and destroyed with out being produced before Magistrate and without any lawful order of confiscation or destruction.
4. The petitioners contend that as they held valid licences granted by the Municipality, the police Authorities have no power or authority to seize, confiscate or destroy the rickshaws and that seizure or destruction of their rickshaws as aforesaid have been arbitrary and illegal. The said Notification to the extent it restricts the movements of rickshaws in the City roads, it is contended, violates the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
5. The petitioners contend that the said Notification of the Government of West Bengal and the seizure and destruction of the rickshaws of the petitioners are illegal, without authority and jurisdiction. On the strength of the licenses issued by the said municipality the petitioners claim to be entitled to ply their rickshaws in the usual course of business in the area specified under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919.
6. In this application moved on the 6th May, 1982 against the State of West Bengal; Chairman, South Dum Dum Municipality; the Commissioner or Police, Calcutta; The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Calcutta. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) Calcutta. The Officer-in-Charge, Cossipore Police Station, Calcutta and the Officer-in-Charge, Chitpur Police Station, Calcutta. The petitioner is pray for issue of appropriate writ, directing the respondents to forbear from seizing the rickshaws of the petitioners and proceeding further pursuant thereto. Other ancilliary reliefs have also been prayed for.
7. On the 6th May, 1982, a Civil Order was passed directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to inspect and identify their seized rickshaws. On the 22nd June, 1982, there was a further order restraining the respondents from interfering with the plying of the rickshaws of the petitioner upto the Marhatta Ditch of Calcutta.
8. At the instance of the parties this application was heard on merits without any Rule nisi being issued. Shibnath Roy, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Calcutta has affirmed an affidavit on the 3rd August 1982 which has been filed in opposition to this petition on behalf of the Police Authorities impleaded as respondents as also the State of West Bengal. It is, inter alia, alleged in this affidavit that the licences issued by the said Municipality to the petitioners in respect of the rickshaws were under S. 173 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 and not under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919. It is alleged that the Deputy Com
