Supreme Court of India
HARI OM GAUTAMversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA & ANR.
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 87
- Decided
- 27 March 1987
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A District Magistrate cannot designate a bus stand; only the Regional Transport Authority may do so under Section 68(2)(r) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Summary
The District Magistrate of Mathura declared two plots in the Baldev town area as a bus stand/halting place and the Town Area Committee contracted a private firm to collect fees from bus operators. The appellant, a bus operator, challenged the magistrate's order and the fee levy through a writ petition, which the Allahabad High Court dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a district magistrate could designate a bus stand under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and whether the area in question was a bus stand or merely a halting place. The Court held that Rule 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules only empowers the magistrate to exercise powers under Section 76, which pertains to parking and halting places, not to fix bus stands, which can be notified only by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 68(2)(r). Since no order from the Regional Transport Authority existed, the magistrate's order and the subsequent fee collection directive were invalid. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, quashed the magistrate’s order and the Town Area Committee’s letter, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the area designated by the District Magistrate constitutes a bus stand or merely a halting place.
- Whether the District Magistrate has statutory authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to declare a bus stand.
- Whether Rule 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 confers power on the District Magistrate to levy fees for the use of a bus stand.
Legislation cited
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 68(2)(r), s. 76, s. 91
- Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940s. Rule 93
Subjects
Motor Vehicles Actbus standdistrict magistrateregional transport authorityparking placeshalting placesstatutory interpretationwrit petitionfees
Judgment
A HAR! OM GAUTAM
v.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA & ANR.
MARCH 27, 1987
B
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68(2)(r), 76 and 91 read with }....
Rule 93 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, scope of-Whether the
District Magistrate has the power to appoint any area as a bus stand/ ..J
C halting places and whether the Town Area Committee has the power to
levy fees, for the use of the area so fixed as Bus stand, from the bus
operators.
Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contain provisions..).._
D relating to "control of transport vehicles". Section 68 confers the
power on the State Government to make rules for the purpose of the
said chapter. Clause (r) of sub-section (2) ofsection 68 of the Act specifi-
cally confers on the State Government without prejudice to the gene-
rally of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 68 of the
Act the power to frame rules regarding "prohibiting the picking up or
E setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified 'f..
places or in specifted areas or at places other than duly notified stands
or baiting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage to stop and
remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required by a -
passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified
halting place." Section 76 empowers the State Government or any .
F authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government to -~
determine parking places and halting stations. Clause (e) of suh-sEdion ·
(2) of section 91 of the Act confers the power on the State Government :i.,,~
specifically to make rules regarding the maintenance and management
of parking places and stands and the fees, if any, which may be charged
for their use. Role 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles 8.ules, 1940
G similarly authorises the District Magistrate to specify places within the
limits of any municipality, notified area, town area or cantonment or
within such other limits as he may define where alone public service ~
vehicles or any specified class or classes of public service vehicles and/or "
goods vehicles may stand indefinitely or for such period as may be ~
specified or public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is
H necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers.
714
'
HARi OM GAUTAM v. D.M. MATHURA 715
The District Magistrate, Mathura by his order dated 22.5.1986 A
·~ declared and determined plot Nos. 701 and 702 in the Town Area,
\
Baldev (Mathura) as a bus stand/halting place of Baldev, where the
stage carriages were directed to stand for the purpose of allowing the
passengers of Baldev to get into and to get down from the stage car·
riages. Accordingly, the Town Area Committee gave a contract to a
private contractor to collect the necessary fees payable by the bus B
operators for making use of the area in question which was within its
jurisdiction for stopping their buses in accordance with the order pas·
sed by the District Magistrate. The appellant, a person providing trans·
port service in the District of Mathura, challenged the said order dated
May 22, 1986 and the order of the Town Area Committee the levy I
fees by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 501 of 1986 before the High C
Court of Allah,.bad. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court
-x on 8.9.1986. Hence the appeal by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: Rule 93 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Roles, 1940 only autho· D
rises the District Magistrate to exercise the powers under Section 76 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is confined to the question of
determination of parking places and halting places which are not the
same as bus stands which can only be notified by the Regional Trans•
port Authority under section 68(2)(r) of the Act. [721B]
E
In the instant case no order has been passed by the Regional
Transport Authority, Mathura to determine the area in question as a
bus stand and the District Megistrate cannot be equated with the
· Regional Transport Authority constituted under the Act. Therefore,
the order dated 22.5.1986 passed by the District Magistrate and also the
_ letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer of Town Area F
Committee, Baldev to the President of the Union requiring the bus
opera!ors to stop their buses at the bus stand and to start from there
and to permit the passengers to get into and to get out of their buses at
that bus stand is not in order. [721C·E]
T.P. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, [1953)
SCR 290; Municipal Board, Puskar v. State Transport Authority, G
Rajasthan and Ors., [1963) Supp. 2 SCR 373; and Municipal Council,
Bhopal v. Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. &
Anr., [1974] l SCR 274, followed.
CIVIL APPELLA'IE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 687
of1987. H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
A From the Judgment and Order dated 8. 9.1986 of the Allahabad ..._,_
High Court in C. W.P. No. 501of1986. r
Yogeshwar Prasad, Vishal Jeet, S.R. Srivastava and Ms. Rachna
Gupta for the Appellant. ·
B S. Markandeya for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant is a person providing ·~
transport service in the District of Mathura. He questioned the validity
of the Order dated May 22, 1986 passed by the District Magistrate,
c Mathura declaring Plot Nos. 701 and 702 in the Town Area, Baldev
(Mathura) as a bus stand/halting place of Baldev, where the stage -J...._
carriages were directed to stand for the purpose of allowing the pas-
senger~ of Baldev to get into and to get down from the stage carriages
in a writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 501 of 1986
D filed before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. That petition was dismissed by the High Court
on September 8, 1986. This appeal by special leave is filed against the
said decision of the High Court.
...
.
The case of the appellant was that the District Magistrate had no
E power to appoint any area as a bus stand under section 76 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under which
he purported to pass the impugned order. According to the appellant
the power to fix any area as a bus stand was vested in the Regional
.~
Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the area and not in the
District Magistrate. The High Court was of the opinion that section 76
F of the Act conferred wide powers on the District Magistrate 'to fix the
places for the bus stand/halting place'. It was further of the view that
the place where the appellant and other bus operators were asked to
stop their buses was only a halting place and hence the order made
under section 76 of the Act was unassailable. It further observed that
since the impugned order did not specifically state that the bus
G operators could allow the passengers to get down and pick up ·the
'
passengers, it could not be construed as an order fixing the area as a
bus stand. It should be stated at this stage that after the impugned .~
order was passed the Town Area Committee gave a contract to a
private contractor to collect that fees payable by the bus operators for
making use of the area in question which was within its jurisdiction for
H stopping their buses in accordance with the order passed by the
HARi OM GAUTAM v. D.M. MATHURA [VENKATARAMIAH. J.] 717
District Magistrate. After the Writ Petition was filed in the High Court, A
4(- the appellant had obtained an order of stay preventing the Town Area
\
Committee from collecting the fees. Immediately after the Writ
Petition was dismissed, the Executive Officer of the Town Area
Committee, Baldev {Mathura) wrote a letter on 10.10.1986 to the
President of the Mathura-Sadabad-Manikpur-Eta Motor Operators
B
Union, Mathura requiring all the bus operators to stop \heir buses at
the ~us stand fixed by the District Magistrate. The letter reads thus:
''President-Mathura-Sadaba~-Manikpur-Eta
Motor Operators Union Mathura.
Letter No. 192/TAB/86 c
Dated: 10.10.86
Subject: Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 501/86 Shri
Hari Om Gautam Versus District Magistrate,
Mathura. D
Sir,
The aforesaid Writ Petition which was filed against
the order of District Magistrate, Mathura dated 22 .5 .1986
E
declaring the old bus stand of T.A. Baldev (Mathura) as
authorised Bus stand/Halting place, has been dismissed by
High Court, Allahabad on 8.9.86 and the stay order con-
cerned has also been cancelled. Now the order of District
Magistrate dated 22.5.86 has become effective again. As a
result of which all the buses of the union are bound to stop F
and start from the authorised Bus stand/Halting place of
Baldev allowing the passengers to get in and get down from
the bus and for booking at this very stand and to pay stand-
commission to T. A.
Faithfully, G
Sd/-8/10
illegible
Executive Officer
(Seal)
Town Area Committee,
Baldev, Mathura." H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
The relevant provisions of the Act which govern the case are
A
these. Section 68, which is in Chapter IV of the Act containing the
provisions relating to 'control of transport vehicles' confers the power
on the State Government to make rules for the purpose of the said
chapter. Clause (r) of sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Act speci-
fically confers on the State Government without prejudice to the
B generality of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 68
of the Act the power to frame rules regarding or 'prohibiting the
picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages
at specified places or in specified areas or at places other than duly
notified stands or halting places and requiring the driver of a stage
carriage to stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so
• '
required by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at
c a notified halting place.' Section 76 of the Act reads thus:
"76. Parking places and halting stations-The State
Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by
the State Government may, in consultation with the local
D authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned,
determine places at which motor vehicles may stand either
indefinitely or for a specified period of time, and may
determine the places at which public service vehicles may
stop for a longer time than is necessary for the taking up
and setting down of passengers."
E
Section 91 of the Act, which is in Chapter VI dealing with 'con-
trol of traffic', confers the power on the State Government to make
rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter
VI. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act confers the
power on the State Government specifically to make rules regarding
F the maintenance and management of parking places and stands and
the fees, if any, which may be charged for their use. Section 76 is also
in Chapter VI.
The first question which arises for consideration is whether the
area in which the bus operators were asked to stop their buses is a bus
G stand or a halting place. The next question is whether, if the said area
is a bus stand, the District Magistrate had the power to pass the
impugned order. It is not disputed before us that the District Magis··
Irate had passed the impugned order in question with the object of
establishing a bus stand in the area in question. That appears to be so
from the order passed by the District Magistrate and the letter dated
H 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer of Baldev Town Area
HARi OM GAUTAM v. D.M. MATHURA (VENKATARAMIAH, J,J 719
'
Committee. We shall proceed on the basis that the District Magistrate A
fixed the area as a bus stand. Regarding the authority which had the
power to notify an area as a bus stand, there are at least three decisions
of this Court. In T.P. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority,
Tanjore, [1953] S.C.R. 290 this Court took the view that the expres-
sion 'duly notified stand' in section 68(2) (r) of the Act meant a stand
duly notified by the Transport Authority and not a stand notified by B
the municipality within whose jurisdiction the area was situated. This
Court held that the fixing and alteration of bus stands was not a
purpose foreign to the 'control of transport vehicles' which was gover-
ned by Chapter IV of the Act and, therefore, rules could be framed by
the State Government regarding the said subject under section
68(2)(r) of the Act. At page 297 of the Reports this Court has observed C
thus:
"The expression 'duly notified stands' is not defined in the
Act, but it is reasonable to presume that a duly notified
stand must be one which is notified by the Transport
Authority and by none other." D
It accordingly affirmed the view of the High Court against whose
judgment the said appeal had been filed that section 76 of the Act
which contained the provision relating to parking places and halting
places had no application to a permanent bus stand which was a sort of
radiating centre of all the bus traffic in the town. A similar question E
arose for consideration in Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Trans-
port Authority, Rajasthan and Ors., (1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 373.
Following the decision in T.B. Ibrahim's case (supra) this Court held
in this case that section 76 of the Act had nothing to do with the fixation
or alteration of a bus stand and the power to issue a notification fixing
a bus stand was implied in section 68(2)(r) of the Act. It further held F
that the power under section 68(2)(r) of the Act could be exercised
only by the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the
area and therefore, the order passed under that provision was open to
revision under section 64-A by the State Transport Authority. The last
case to which reference has to be made is. Municipal Council, Bhopal
v. Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-op. Society Ltd. & Ant., 0
[1974] 1 S.C.R. 274 where the two decisions referred to above were
applied for purposes of deciding the said case. The facts of this case
were these. The Municipal Council of Bhopal had made bye-laws
under the provisions of section 358(7)(f) and (m) read with section 349
(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Bye-law 2 pro·
vided that no person incharge of a motor-bus plying for hire shall for H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
A the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers, park or stop
his bus anywhere within the limits of the municipality except at the
Municipal Bus Stand. The other bye-laws provided for a levy of a fee of
Re. I for every 8 hours or part thereof in respect of the use of the bus
stand by such buses and for the issue of a permit on such payment. The
respondent in that case filed a writ petition in the High Court of
B Madhya Pradesh challenging the said bye-laws. The High Court held
that bye-Jaw l(c), which defined the expression 'Municipal Bus Stand'
and bye-law 2 were valid but held bye-laws 3 to 7 which provided for
the payment of fee and the' giving of permit etc., as invalid and
restrained the Municipal Council from giving effect to those bye-laws
in any manner. In that case this Court affirmed the decision of the
c High Court holding that the power to regulate or prohibit the use of
municipal land as a halting place of vehicles could not be used to
compel people to use such land as halting place. Such a power should
be given specifically by the statute and that the power to compel
persons in charge of motor buses to stop only at certain places for the
purpose of taking up or setting down passengers was a matter which
D relating to motor traffic and that there was a specific provision in
section 68(2)(r) of the Act for that purpose. Accordingly this Court
held that the bye-laws which compelled persons in charge of motor
buses to use the Municipal Bus Stand could not be passed by the
Municipality. In that case also the District Magistrate had declared the
Bhopal Municipal Bus Stand as a bus stand. The Municipal Council
E contended before this Court that the District Magistrate had been
authorised by the State Government under section 76 of the Act to
pass an order fixing the Municipal Bus Stand a·s a bus stand for
purposes of the Act. Rejecting the said contention this Court held that
the District Magistrate could not exercise the power of fixing a bus
stand under section 76 of the Act and that could be done only under
F section 68(2)(r) of the Act. The Court further observed that while the
Municipal Corporation had no power to compel persons plying motor
buses for hire to use only the Municipal Bus Stand for the purpose of
taking up and setting down passengers, there can be no objection to its
providing a bus stand for anybody who chooses to use it voluntarily
and to such person being required to pay tor such use.
G
In the instant case reliance is placed by the learned counsel for
the Town Area Committee of Baldev on rule 93 of the U .P. Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1940 which authorises the District Magistrate to
specify places within the limits of any municipality, notified area, town
area or cantonment or within such other limits as he may define where
H alone public service vehicles or any specified class or classes of public
HARi OM GAUTAM v. D.M. MATHURA (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 721
service vehicles and/or goods vehicles may stand indefinitely· or for A
such period as may be specified or public service vehicles may stop for
a longer time than is necessary for the taking up and setting down of
passengers. We do not think that the Town Area Committee can
derive any assistance from this rule. It only authorises the District
Magistrate to exercise the powers under section 76 of the Act which is
B
confined to the question of determination of parking places and halt-
ing places which are not the same as bus stands which can only be
notified by the Regional Transport Authority as. held by this Court in
T.B. Ibrahim's case (supra). It is not disputed that in the instant case
no order has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority,
Mathura to determine the area in question as a bus stand and the
District Magistrate cannot be equated with the Regional Transport c
Authority constituted under the Act. The High Court was, therefore,
in error in upholding the impugned order passed by the District Magis-
trate. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
quash the order dated 22.5.1986 passed by the District Magistrate. We
also quash the Jetter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer
D
of Town Area Committee, Baldev to the President of the Union re-
quiring the bus operators to stop their buses at the bus stand and to
start from there and to permit the passengers to get into and to get out
of their buses at that bus stand. It is open to the Regional Transport
J )
Authority to take action immediately for determining any convenient
place or places within the Town Area of Baldev (Mathura) as a bus
E
stand.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no
order as to costs.
S.R. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor Vehicles Act"Sign in to search