Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Chaalak Shakti & Ors – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6811 of 2021 & CM APPL. 21465 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Uniform - Drivers of Auto Rickshaws and Taxis - Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Rule 7 of DMV Rules, S.O. 415 E dated 08.06.1989 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 7 of the DMV Rules and S.O. No. 415 E dated 08.06.1989 under Section 88(11) (ii) of the MV Act. The court found that the competence of the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of the State Government to lay down rules for the uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles in Delhi cannot be questioned. The contention that there is no requirement of a uniform and the prescription of uniform is vague or arbitrary and is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted. The court dismissed the petition and pending applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the requirement for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis to wear uniforms, citing lack of clarity on the specifications and design of the uniform. They contended that the rules and permit conditions were vague, arbitrary, and violated constitutional freedoms under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the competence of the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of the State Government to lay down rules for the uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles in Delhi cannot be questioned. The contention that there is no requirement of a uniform and the prescription of uniform is vague or arbitrary and is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the clarity and validity of the rules and permit conditions regarding the uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis, and the alleged violation of constitutional freedoms under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, regarding the competence of the Central and State Governments to prescribe uniform requirements for drivers of transport vehicles. The court found that the rules and permit conditions were not vague or arbitrary and did not violate constitutional freedoms.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, along with pending applications.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition stating that the drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis are being prosecuted and heavily challaned for not wearing uniforms when there is no clarity on the colour of uniform, specification of fabric, design and the nature of fabric to be used by the drivers.
2. Petitioner No.1, Chaalak Shakti, which claims to be a trade union of drivers, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:
"1) Strike down Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993.
2) Strike down permit conditions as notified vide S.O. 415(E) dated 8-6-1989 issued under section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3) Quash any condition of any permit issued by respondent no. 1 in relation of uniform required to be worn by the drivers of transport vehicles.
4) Direct the respondents to pay legal costs to the petitioners. "
3. It is stated by the Petitioners that Respondent No.1 has brought out the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `the DMV Rules') and Rule 7 of the DMV Rules prescribes that the driver of a public service vehicle other than driver of State Transports Undertaking, while on duty, shall wear khaki uniform with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it.
4. On the other hand, the permit conditions dated 23.05.2013 which have been specified by the Deputy Commissioner, Auto Rickshaw Unit, which is the Regional Transport Authority has prescribed that the driver shall wear uniform in Grey colour as prescribed by the State Transport Authority, Delhi and the driver shall wear a Public Service Vehicle Badge on his/her left side of the uniform.
5. It is further stated that vide S.O. No. 415 E dated 08.06.1989, permit conditions were being issued under Section 88(11) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the MV Act') wherein it is prescribed that drivers of tourist vehicles shall wear white uniform in summers and blue or grey uniform in winters.
6. It is further stated that in view of lack of clarity on the subject, Rule 7 of the DMV Rules which mandates khaki uniform to be worn by the drivers with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it must be struck down and also the permit conditions notified in S.O. No. 415 E dated 08.06.1989 under Section 88(11) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act must be struck down. It is contended that no uniform is necessary for the drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis and only they should be asked to wear badges to disclose their identity.
7. It is contended that the purpose of prescribing a uniform is only for identification. It is pointed out that apart from the fact that there is a lack of clarity on the colour of the uniform, i.e., whether it should be khaki or grey or white, there can also be confusion on the shade of grey or khaki which will also lead to the drivers being unnecessarily fined by the authorities. It is, therefore, contended that the rules and the permit conditions apart from being completely vague and manifestly arbitrary, there is no reasonable nexus between the rules/permit conditions and the object that is sought to be achieved, which is identification of the driver.
8. The Petitioners have also contended that there is also lack of clarity regarding the type of garment that is whether it should be pant-shirt, safari-suit or kurta-pajama, the fabric that is to be used, details of trimmings and the requirements of accessories etc. It has also been pointed out that forcing the drivers of autos and taxis to wear uniform is an affront to the constitutional freedom under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Per contra, it is stated by learned Counsel for the Respondent/State that Section 74 of the MV Act gives power to the Regional Transport Authority to grant a contract carriage permit and can lay down conditions for grant of such permits. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to Sectio
The competence of the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of the State Government to lay down rules for the uniform to be ....
The imposition of eligibility conditions for auto rickshaw permits must be backed by statutory authority; the State's requirement for knowledge of Marathi is illegal as it lacks foundation in law.
The judgment established the legal framework for imposing conditions in Permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and ruled on the discriminatory nature of certain conditions, the authority of the ....
The grant of permits to private operators on nationalized routes is prohibited under the scheme framed under Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
State Government lacks authority to impose vehicle age limit for permit issuance under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; such power is vested solely with the Central Government.
The State Government lacks authority to issue circulars imposing vehicle age limits for permit renewals, a power reserved for the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
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
