The words "or other person" used in Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 should not be read ejusdem generis with the words "any police officer".

1. - As identical questions of law have been raised in all the above cases as such the same are disposed of by one common order.

2. The petitioners, who are holders of contract carriage permits on the various routes in Rajasthan have filed these writ petitions challenging the Notification No. F. 1(6)H/Unit/X-75 S.C. 420 dated July 15, 1975 issued by the Government under Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') In order to appreciate the contentions raised in these writ petitions, the impugned Notification is reproduced as under: HOME (GR. X) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION

No. F. 1(6)H/Unit-X-75 S.C. 420
July 15, 1975In exercise of power conferred by Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) the Government hereby further authorises the following persons to exercise all the powers & to take or cause to be taken all the proper steps within their respective jurisdiction under the said section in respect of all the stage carriages and contract carriages plying on or in any notified area under Section 68-D(3) of the said Act or in any portion thereof namely:

3. The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance to contract carriage permits in their favour they are plying their vehicles on various routes in State of Rajasthan under the permits granted to them. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred to as 'the Corporation') is a competitor in the above trade with the petitioners and has also interest in the same business in which the petitioners are interested. The Corporation being rival in trade and business aforesaid does not take the existence of the petitioners happily. On this account the officers of the Corporation have on many occasions harassed the petitioners by seizing and detaining their vehicles in total violation of the provisions of Section 129-A of the Act. Once the vehicles of the petitioners are seized and detained, it takes long number of days to get the vehicles released and for this purpose the petitioners and their likes in the business have to incur lot of expenses. They have to approach learned Judicial Magistrate (Transport whose) Headquarter is located at Jodhpur. Faced with this situation, more often the petitioners and their likes are compelled to admit their guilt as they can ill-afford to attend the number of hearings in the event of their denying the charges. It has been further alleged that on the other hand, if the Corporation violates the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, there is no-body to take the Corporation to task. It has been submitted that it was a well known fact for which judicial notice should be taken that the buses run by the Corporation go over-crowded and even passengers are carried on the top of such buses. The petitioners have challenged the impugned notification on the grounds that the words "or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government" should be read ejusdem generis with the words" any police officer authorised in this behalf." Section 129-A reads as under:

Section 129-A. Power to detain vehicles used without certificate of registration or permit-Any Police Officer authorised in this behalf or other person authorised in this behalf or other authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of (Section 22) or without the permit required by Sub-section (1) of Section 42 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the v