Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 56
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha, Mudholkab
SHAH TRANSPORT CO , CHHINDWARA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 1751 of 1951
Decided on : 18-04-1952
D T Mangalmurti, R V S Mani, T P Naik, Advocates
The State has the power to regulate or prohibit the plying of buses on public highways in public interest, and a policy prioritizing 'old operators' over 'new operators' for providing for 'displaced operators' is not discriminatory if based on a reasonable classification.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - TEMPORARY PERMITS - RENEWAL - RIGHT TO RENEWAL - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 AND 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, motor transport companies, challenged the refusal of the Regional Transport Authority to renew their permits to operate buses on certain routes. They claimed a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on their business and alleged discrimination under Article 14 due to a policy prioritizing 'old operators' over 'new operators'.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the refusal to renew the permits did not violate any fundamental right as the right under Article 19(1)(g) was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The policy of providing for 'displaced operators' on routes held by 'new operators' was not discriminatory as it was based on a reasonable classification.
Issues: 1. Whether the refusal to renew the permits violated the petitioners' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the policy of prioritizing 'old operators' over 'new operators' was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the permits held by the petitioners were temporary or permanent permits and whether they had a legal right to renewal under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), which includes the State's power to regulate or prohibit the plying of buses on public highways in public interest. 2. The classification of operators into 'old operators' and 'new operators' was reasonable as it was based on the date when the policy of nationalization came into force. The policy of providing for 'displaced operators' on routes held by 'new operators' was not discriminatory. 3. The permits held by the petitioners were not temporary permits as defined in Section 62(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, nor were they regular permits granted after following the procedure under Section 57. They were irregular permits granted without any express provision in the Act, and thus, the petitioners had no legal right to renewal under Section 58(2).
Final Decision: Both petitions were dismissed as the court found no infringement of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioners.
Sinha And Mudholkab, J—This petition and Miscellaneous Petition No. 1757 of 1951 have been made under Article 226 of the Constitution. In both these petitions, the petitioners are Motor Transport Companies and their grievance is that the permits which they held for running their buses along certain routes were improperly refused to be renewed by the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur. They had preferred appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, but their appeals were rejected.
2. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, a High Court is empowered to issue directions orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. The words "any other purpose" have been interpreted by this Court and by several other High Courts info India to mean 'a legal right'. Therefore, before this Court can issue directions, orders or writs, it must be satisfied that a fundamental right or any other legal right of the petitioners has been infringed.
3. The fundamental right which the petitioners assert in these cases is that of carrying on their business of motor transport. They assert that this right has been guaranteed bf sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19. They also assert that certain orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority are discriminatory and are thus in contravention of Article- 14 of the Constitution. Finally, they say that as each of them held a permit for running buses along particular routes, each of them had a right under Section 58(2) of the.Motor Vehicles Act to have his permits renewed.
4. In order to appreciate the significance of the claim made on behalf of the petitioners, it is necessary to recite certain facts. Each of the petitioners was granted a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority on 16-4-1949 to run one return trip daily on the Pandhurna-Sausar route. These permits were effective from 28-4-1949 to 27-8-1949. The petitioners applied for the periodical renewal of these permits and the permits were renewed for a period of four months. After that each of those permits was renewed from time to time for a period of two months up to 27-9-1950. On 27-9-1950 they were renewed for a period of one month only. We may mention that though the permits issued to the petitioners are styled as temporary permits, petitioners assert that they are not temporary permits as defined in sertion 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that they must be regarded as regular permits for short periods. This assertion of the petitioners is denied by the respondents. It is necessary to examine this assertion in connection with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that they have a legal right to have the permits renewed.
5. Instead of renewing the permits granted to the petitioners, the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the respondent No. 4, Abdul Rashid Khan, to ply his buses on the routes on which the petitioners held permits till 27-10-1950. This person used to ply his buses till sometime before this date on the Chhindwara Multai Route. As that route was 'nationalized', that is, was made over to the Central Provinces Transport Services in which the State Government of Madhya Pradesh is financially interested, provision was made for him on the route held by the petitioners. This was done in pursuance of the provisions of Section 58-A read with Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act which enable the State Government to direct the Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit to a 'displaced operator' (that is, a person whose permit has been cancelled because the route on. which he held the permit had been nationalized). According to the petitioners, the respondent No. 4 was not a displaced operator on the date on which he was granted a permit to ply his buses till 27-10-1950 and was thus not entitled to be granted a permit on the routes held by them.
