Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma, JJ.
M.P. Bus Operator Association v. State of M. P.
Writ Appeal No. 653 of 2021(Indore): against the order dated 29.6.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.8597/2021;
Decided on 9.8.2021
(1) Administrative Order -- authority equipped with enabling provision -- non-quoting of provision or quoting of wrong provision will not denude him from exercising statutory power. (1978) 1 SCC 405 distinguished. AIR 1977 SC 854, (2001) 3 SCC 482, (2003) 6 SCC 545, (2004) 1 SCC 453, (2006) 5 SCC 789 and (2004) 12 SCC 278 followed. Writ Appeal No.478 of 2021 referred to. [Para 19
(2) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 -- S. 24 -- order u/s. 24 of Act, 2005 silent as to whether it is based on decision of committee u/s. 22 or not -- no pleading in writ petition challenging competence of authority issuing order -- in absence of any such pleading and foundation, no interference warranted at appellate stage -- it was mixed question of facts and law which should have been specifically pleaded in writ petition. [Para 21
(3) Precedent -- judgments of apex Court -- are not Euclid's theorem -- must be considered in fact-situation of case and on basis of statute which governs field. [Para 23
(4) Disaster Management Act, 2005 -- S.24 -- Constitution of India -- Art.19 (6) -- restriction on vehicular traffic -- complete ban because of pandemic -- language employed in sub-clause (a) wide enough to restrict traffic movement from vulnerable or pandemic affected area -- S.24 gives ample power to "control and restrict vehicular traffic" -- wide enough to impose complete ban or completely control or restrict vehicular movement -- prohibition on vehicular movement falls within ambit of reasonable restriction as per Art. 19 (6) of Constitution. (2012) 5 SCC 1, AIR 1951 SC 118, AIR 1954 SC 728 and (2014) 8 SCC 682 distinguished.
[Paras 24, 26& 31
(5) Executive Instructions -- cannot prevail over statutory provision -- administrative instructions can supplement statutory provisions but cannot supplant it.Ex.Capt. (1991) 2 SCC 708 and (2001) 3 SCC 117 referred to. [Para 26
(6) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227-- plausible view taken by writ Court -- does not warrant interference. (2016) 3 SCC 340 followed. [Para 28
¼1½ iz'kklfud vkns'k && izkf/kdkjh lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k ls ySl && mica/k dk mYys[k ugha djus ;k xyr mica/k dk mYys[k djus ls og dkuwuh 'kfDr iz;qDr djus ls oafpr ugha gksxkA ¼1978½1 ,l lh lh 405 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 854] ¼2001½3 ,l lh lh 482] ¼2003½6 ,l lh lh 545] ¼2004½1 ,l lh lh 453] ¼2006½5 ,l lh lh 789 rFkk ¼2004½12 ,l lh lh 278 vuqlfjrA fjV vihy Ø- 478 lu~ 2021 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19
¼2½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½
&& /kkjk 2¼1½ && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226@227 && vkink izca/ku vf/kfu;e] 2005 && /kkjk 24 && vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk 24 ds v/khu vkns'k bl ckjs esa ekSu fd og /kkjk 22 ds v/khu lfefr ds fofu'p; ij vk/kkfjr gS ;k ugha && vkns'k tkjh djus okys izkf/kdkjh dh l{kerk ij vk{ksi dk fjV ;kfpdk esa dksbZ vfHkopu ugha && ,sls fdlh vfHkopu vkSj vk/kkj ds vHkko esa] vihyh izØe ij gLr{ksi okaNuh; ugha && ;g rF;ksa vkSj fof/k dk fefJr iz'u Fkk] ftldk fjV ;kfpdk esa fofufnZ"V vfHkokd~ fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼iSjk 21
¼3½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; && ;wfDyM ds lw= ugha && mu ij izdj.k dh rF;kRed ifjfLFkfr esa rFkk ml {ks= esa izo`Ùk dkuwu ds vk/kkj ij fopkj fd;k tkuk vko';dA ¼iSjk 23
¼4½ vkink izca/ku vf/kfu;e] 2005 && /kkjk 24 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq& 19¼6½ && okgu ;krk;kr ij fuc±/ku && oSf'od egkekjh ds dkj.k iw.kZ izfrcaèk && mi[kaM ¼d½ esa iz;qDr Hkk"kk laosnu'khy ;k oSf'od egkekjh izHkkfor {ks= ls ;krk;kr lapj.k fuc±f/kr djus ds fy, i;kZIrr% O;kid && /kkjk 24 esa ßokgu ;krk;kr dks fu;af=r vkSj fuc±f/krÞ djus dh i;kZIr 'kfDr nh xbZ gS && iw.kZ izfrcaèk vf/kjksfir djus vFkok okgu lapj.k dks iw.kZr% fu;af=r djus ;k fuc±fèkr djus ds fy, i;kZIrr% O;kid && ;krk;kr lapj.k dks izfr"ks/k lafo/kku ds vuq&19¼6½ ds vuqlkj ;qfDr;qDr fuc±/ku dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA ¼2012½5 ,l lh lh 1] , vkb vkj 1951 ,l lh 118] , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 728 rFkk ¼2014½8 ,l lh lh 682 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 24] 26 ,oa 31
¼5½ dk;Zikfyd vuqns'k && dkuwuh mica/k ij vfHkHkkoh ugha gks ldrs && iz'kklfud vuqns'k dkuwuh mica/kksa dh iwfrZ dj ldrs gSa ijarq mudk LFkku ugha ys ldrsA ¼1991½2 ,l lh lh 708 rFkk ¼2001½3 ,l lh lh 117 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26
¼6½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005
¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2 ¼1½ && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&226@227 && fjV U;k;ky; }kjk laHkkO; n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k x;k && gLr{ksi okaNuh; ughaA ¼2016½3 ,l lh lh 340 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 26
ORDER
Paul, J. -- 1. The appellant-M.P. Bus Operator Association has filed this writ appeal in representative capacity against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.6.2021 passed in W.P. No. 8597/2021, whereby the Writ Court declined interference on the orders dated 18.3.2021, 1.3.2021, 31.3.2021 & 22.6.2021 whereby inter-state bus transportation between State of MP and Maharashtra was restricted during different periods.
2. Since all the orders are similarly worded, one such order dated 18.3.2021 (Page 72) is reproduced for ready reference :--
dk;kZYk; ifjogu vk;qDRk e/; izns'k] Xokfy;j
dzekad@1905@iz'kk-@Vhlh@21 Xokfy;j fnukad 18@03@2021
izfr]
1& {ks=h; mi ifjogu vk;qDRk]
--------------------------------- ¼leLr½] e/;izns'k
2& {ks=h;@vfrfjDRk {ks=h;@ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh
--------------------------------- ¼leLr½] e/;izns'k
fo"k; %& dksjksuk ok;jl (covid-19) ls cpko dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s egkjk"Vª jkT; ,oa e/; izns'k jkT; ds chp vUrjkZTTkh; cl ifjogu lsok dks LFkfxr j[kus ds laca/k esaA
fo"k;kUrxZr dksjksuk ok;jl (covid-19) ds O;kid laØe.k ij izHkkoh jksdFkke dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd] e/; izns'k jkT; esa egkjk"Vª jkT; ls vkus rFkk tkus okys cl ifjogu lapkyu dks LFkfxr fd;k tkosA
vr% vUrjkZTth; vuqKkvksa ,oa vf[ky Hkkjrh; Ik;ZVd vuqKkvksa ls vPNkfnr dze'k% e/; izns'k jkT; dh leLr ;k=h cl okguksa dk egkjk"Vª jkT; dh lhek es izos'k rFkk egkjk"Vª jkT; dh leLr ;k=h cl okguksa dk e/; izns'k jkT; dh lhek esa izos'k fnukad 21 ekpZ 2021 ls 31 ekpZ 2021 rd dh vof/k ds fy;s LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gSA
vij ifjogu vk;qDr ,oa lfpo
jkT; ifjogu izkf/kdkj
e/; izns'k
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. The parties are at loggerheads on the validity of said notification/orders. The State took a stand that orders are passed for disaster management whereas stand of appellant is that it is disastrous management on the part of the state. On this aspect, they fought the battle before the learned Single Judge, but by order dated 29.6.2021, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the State is empowered under section 24 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Act of 2005) to issue such restrictions. The learned Single Judge also declined interference on the ground of alleged discrimination with railway and air traffic.
4. Shri Manu Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that a conjoint reading of all the impugned orders makes it clear that no enabling provision or source of power is mentioned in the said orders. In absence thereof, the reason cannot be furnished by way of filing counter affidavit. Reliance is placed on a constitution bench judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner) which was recently followed by this bench in WA No.478/2021 (Sanjay Jain v. State of M.P.). The next contention is that the Govt. of India Guideline dated 23.3.2021 makes it clear that the State is authorized to ‘regulate travel’ and ‘regulation’, by no stretch of imagination can be equated with ‘restriction’. The reliance is placed on Clause-12, 14 & 19 of these Guidelines dated 23.3.2021. Emphasis is laid on Clause-19, wherein it is mentioned that there shall be no restriction on inter-State and intra-State movement of persons and goods, which reads as under:-
“19. There shall be no restriction on inter-State and intra-State movement of persons and goods including those for cross land-border trade under Treaties with neighbouring countries. No separate permission/approval/e-permit will be required for such movements.” (Emphasis Supplied)
5. The ancillary argument of Shri Maheshwari is that such restriction infringes fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. There is no reasonable classification or object sought to be achieved by putting restriction on vehicular transport only whereas through railways and air
Suo motu applications for stage carriage route permits impermissible without prior route notification and publication; authorities must strictly adhere to procedural rules and binding precedents to p....
Point of Law : High Court will have jurisdiction if cause of action wholly or in part arises within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction, even though the seat of the Government or authority or ....
The Inter-State Transport Commission has jurisdiction over disputes arising from transport operations on inter-State routes, requiring permits for commercial entities.
The transport authorities can refuse permit applications based on relevant factors such as traffic conditions and pollution concerns.
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.
The court emphasized the necessity of balancing public safety with the provision of transport services, ruling against arbitrary rejections of permit applications.
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
