http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

S.K. BHATIA & OTHERS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/08/1983

BENCH:

REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

BENCH:

REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:

1983 AIR 988 1983 SCR (3) 595

1983 SCC (4) 194 1983 SCALE (2)95

ACT:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-condition fn a permit as to

age of mini buses-whether infringes Article 14 of the

Constitution.

U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act 1976’

section 4-scope of.

HEADNOTE:

A condition that the motor vehicle covered by the

permit shall not be more than four years old, counted from

the date of registration to any time during the validity of

the permit is attached to every permit for plying a mini

bus. The petitioners contended (i) that this condition

amounted to an infringement of Article 14 of the

Constitution in that no such condition was attached in the

case of omnibuses and (ii) that the authority competent to

impose the condition was the authority constituted under the

U. P. Act and not tho Regional Transport Authority.

Dismissing the petitions.

^

HELD: It is not correct to say that a condition similar

to the one attached to permits issued in the case of mini

buses was not attached to the permits issued in the case of

omnibuses. In their case too, there is a condition that the

vehicle should be replaced on the expiry of five years from

the date of registration. Secondly, omnibuses and mini buses

constitute different classes and are not comparable. [598 D]

The source of power for imposing condition 18 is

section 51(2) (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act under which the

authority empowered to impose the condition is the Regional

Transport Authority. Section 4 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles

(Special Provisions) Act, 1976 has nothing whatever to do

with the imposition of conditions on mini buses plying as

contract carriages. That Act deals with authorization of and

use of private mini buses as stage carriage within specified

limits covered by an approved scheme. [598 G]

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURBDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 1124,4908,

9069-70,18-21, 4817,9445-48 of 1981, 1336, 2117-20, 6808 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

7219 of 1982, 2928 of 1980,1698/80 and 663 of 1981.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

S. Markandey, Mrs. C. Markandey, U.S. Prasad, R.K Jain,

R.B. Mehrotra, Ravi Prakash Gupta and K.K Gupta for the

Petitioners.

596

Kapil Sibal and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In these writ petitions, the vires

of condition No. 18 attached to the permits issued by the

respective Regional Transport Authorities of the State of

Uttar Pradesh :o the petitioners for plying contract

carriages known as ’mini’ buses is in question. ’Mini bus’

is defined by sec. 2 (d) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special

Provisions) Act, 1976 as meaning "an omnibus which is

constructed or adapted to carry not more than 35 persons

excluding the driver". Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles

Act enables the Regional Transport Authority granting a

contract carriage permit to attach in the permit any one or

more of the conditions enumerated in that provision. Item

(x) of Section 51 (2) reads "any other condition which may

be prescribed". Condition No. 18 is a condition which is

prescribed and attached in every permit for plying a mini

bus. The condition in its original form stood thus: "The

motor vehicle covered by the permit shall not be more than

four years old counted from the date of registration to any

time during the validity of the permit." The period of four

years originally stipulated was increased to "seven" on

September 28, 1978 and again raised to "nine" on December

21, 1981.