Supreme Court of India
M/S. KRISHNA BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1985 INSC 161
- Decided
- 25 July 1985
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
The notification conferring police powers on the General Manager of Haryana Roadways is invalid as it violates Article 19(1)(g) and the object of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether a 1973 notification that conferred the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the General Manager of Haryana Roadways was valid. The petitioners, private motor transport operators, argued that the appointment violated their fundamental right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) and was contrary to the object of the Act. The Court held that the General Manager, being a competitor and directly responsible for the state roadways' fleet, could not impartially exercise police powers, creating a conflict of interest and an unreasonable restriction on private operators. Consequently, the notification was declared invalid and struck down. The appeal and writ petitions were allowed, and the notification was quashed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer exercising powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is constitutionally valid.
- Whether such appointment violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by imposing an unreasonable restriction on the right to practice any trade, business or profession.
- Whether the appointment is contrary to the object and spirit of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(g)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 464
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 129, s. 129-A, s. 133-A
Subjects
Motor Vehicles ActArticle 19(1)(g)Police powersConflict of interestConstitutional lawAdministrative lawTransport regulationAppointment validity
Judgment
330
A M/ s. KRISHNA BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
JULY 25, 1985
ll [E.S. VENKATARAMlAH AND K.B. MISKA, JJ. J
The Punjab Motor Vehicles \Haryana First Amendment) Rules,
1973 adding clause \d) to 1062 whereby the General Manager,
Haryana Roadways is conferred with all powers exercisable by a
Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 (Act IV of 1939) - Whether the conferal of such a power is
c violative of Article 19(1)\d) of the Constitution and otherwise
contrary to the object and spir.it of the Act, in view of his
position as General Manger.
Under section 133-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the
State Government may for the purpose of carrying
' into effect the
provisions of the Act establish a motor vehidles department and
D appoint as officers thereof such as it think~ fit. Under Rule
10:2 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (as in force in the
State of llaryana) as it stood prior to March 16, 1973, under
class II, the State Government had appointed' and empowered (a)
Secretaries, Regional Transport Authorities;· (b) Extra Assistant
Transport Controller (Operation); and (c) Extra Assistant Trans-
E port Controller (Traffic) with police powers exercisable by De-
puty Superintendent of Police under the Act. There are several
powers, like in sections 129. 129-A of the Act, which a Police
Officer may exercise under the Act and the rules made thereunder
against persons who are carrying on the business of providing
motor transport facilities.
F
The appellant in the Civil Appeal and the petitioners in
the Writ Petitions carry on their business of motor transport in
the State of llaryana. All the motor vehicles operators are re-
quired to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
made thereunder. Non-compliance with many of those provisions
G ..Ould result in prosecution and those who are found quilty are
liable to be punished. The Haryns Roadways is a department of
the State of Haryana. It also carries on the business of provi-
ding passenger transport facilities i~ competition with the
appellant and the petitioners herein. It owns a fleet of motor
vehicles for the purpose of its business. The llaryana Roadways
H
KRISHNA BUS SERVICE v. STATE 331
is also subject to the various provisions of the Act and the, A
rules made thereunder. The General Manager of Haryans Roadways is
principally responsible for the proper administration of the
Haryans Roadways.
By a notifiction dated March 16, 1973 called the Punjab
Motor Vehicles (Hary~ First Amendment) Act Bules, 1973, the B
General Manager Haryans Roadways was conferred with the . powers
exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police by virtue of the
addition of clause (d) in Bule 10:2 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles
Bules, 1940.
The appellant in C.A. No. 2890/85 filed a writ petition No. c
1770/78 on the file of the Punjab and Haryana High Court challen-
ging the said conferal of power upon the General Manager, which
was dismissed in limine and has come in appeal by way of Special
Leave. The writ petitioners under Article 32 also contend: (i)
the appointment of the General Manger, Haryana Roadways, who is
himself responsibile for the proper management of the activities u
of the Haryans Roadways and its prosperity and profitability and
who is carrying on business in competition with other private
operators as an officer who can exercise the powers of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police under the Act is violative under Article
19 (l)(g) of the Constitution and it is otherwise contrary to the
object and spirit of the Act; and (ii) that the General Manager,
Haryana Roadways would not be able to discharge his functions E
satisfactorily in the interests of the general public si;ice as
being himself under a duty to comply with the provisions of the
Act and the rules ·made thereunder in respect of the motor vehi-
cles of the llaryana Roadways cannot be expected to.discharge the
functions of checking, inspection, search ·and seizure regarding
·the motor vehicles belonging to the llaryans Roadways and to take F
appropriate steps to prosecute the officers of his own department
wo are not complying with the provisions of the Act.
Allowing the appeal and the petitions, the Court
HELll: 1.1. The Notification dated March 16, 1973 called G
' the Punjab Motor Vehicles (Haryana First .Amednment) Bules, 1973
by which the General Manager, Haryans Roadways was conferrd the
powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the
Act is invalid. [338 D-E]
1. 2 The appointment of the General Mangager, Haryans H
Roadways who is directly responsible for running its motor
vehicles as one of the officers who can exercise the powers of a
332 SUPREME COUilT REPORTS [l9b5) SUPP.2 s.c.R.
Deputy Superintendtmt of Police under the Act imposes an unrea-
A
sonable restriction on the fundamental right of the private motor
vehicles operators and is therefore violative of Article 19{l)(g)
of the Constitution. [337 Q;i]
1.3 The powers of stopping the motor vehicles and the
powers of inspection, search, seizure and detention exercised
II
under the Act are serious restrictioua on the flmdamental right
of the operators of motor vehicles guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(g) of the Constitution. These powers cs.n be considered as
reasonable restrictions only when they are exercised properly in
the interests of the general public. They should be reasonable
both from the substantive as well as the procedural standpoint.
SUch powers should, therefore be entrusted to a person who is
c expected to exercise them fairly and without bias. [337 A-B]
The General Manager of Haryana Roadways who is a rival in
business to the private operators of mcitor vehicles in the State
and is intimately connected with the running of motor vehicles
cannot be expected to discharge his duties in a fair and
reasonable manner. An unobstructed operation of the motor vehi-
D
cles by private owners operating along the same route or routes
would naturally affect the earnings of the Haryana Roadways.
Therefore, there is every liitlihood of his being over-zealous in
discharging his duties of stopping a vehicle and in searching,
seizing and detaining motor vehicles belooging to others and at
the same time excessively lenient in the case of vehicles belong-
E
. ing to his own department. lf in discharging his duties in the
case of vehicles belonging to others he fails to give due regard
· to the interests of the owners thereof he would be violating
their fnndamental right to carry on business in a reasonable way.
if he is too lenient in inspecting the vehicles belonging to his
own department, the interests of the travelling puhlic at large
F
would be in peril. In both the cases there is a conflict between
his duty on the one hand and his interest on the other. Moreover
administration must be rooted in confidence and that confidence
is destroyed when people begin to think thst the officer
concerned is biased. This is not a case which is governed by the
rule of necessity. As it ia, there are many other officers who ~
G
are entrusted with the powers of the police officers under the
Act. And, therefore, there is no necessity to appoint the
General Maoager of Haryana Roadways also to exercise the said
, powers. Further the appointment is not in the interests of the
general public since large number of motor vehicles owned by the
Haryans Roadways would not be subject to inspection and' checkl ng ·
li
KRISHNA BUS SERVICE V• STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J •] 333
A
by an f.ndependent agency• The legislature could not have intended
while enacting section 133-A of the kt that a person who was
himself directly resp0nsible for the proper running of the lllOtor
vehicles according to law could be appointed as the inspecting
and investigating officer by the State Government for the purpose
of enforcing the Act. [337 11'.-F, 338 A-C] B
Junta Motor Transport aad Another V• State of Uttar
Pf:adeah, 1970 Allahabad Law Journal, Page 810, approved.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2890 of
1985. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.2.1984 of the Pt\njab
and Haryans High Court in L.P; A. No. 28 of 1984.
AND
D
Writ Petition Nos. 12895-12896 of 1984.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
S.K. Mehta for the Appellant in C.A. No. 2890 of 1985 and
Petitioner in w,p; Noa. 12895-96/84.
M.K. Dua, P:N. !'Uri, Aman Vachhar for the Petitioners in E
- w.P; Nos. 12895-96 of 1984.
M.S. Gujral and R.N. P6ddar with him for the Responents in
w.P. Nos. 12895-96 of 1984.
Anil Dev Singh, N.S. Das Behl and R.N. P6dclar with him for
the Respondents in C.A. No. 2890 of 1985. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vl!NKATARAMIAI!, J. In the above cases the short question
which arise for consideration is whether the appointment of the
General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer who can G
exercise the powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of
P6lice under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter · referred
to as 'the Act'.) by the Government of Haryana under the Notifica-
tion dated March 16, 1973 issued under section 133-A of the Act
is valid or not.
H
The appellant in the above appeal by special .leave ques-
tioned the validity of the appointment of the General Manager of
Haryana Roadways under the Notification, referred to above, as an
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R.
A officer entitled to exercise the powers ·at a Deputy Superintend-
ent of Police under the Act in Writ Petition No. 1770 of 1978 on
the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Writ
Petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine. Aggrieved by
the decision of the High Court the appellant has preferred the
above appeal. The petitioners in the above mentioned Writ
li Petitions have questioned the validity of the above said Notifi-
cation under Article 32 of the Constitution. Since the point
involved in the Civil Appeal and tn the Writ Petitions is
common, we ptopose to dispose of all these cases by this common
judgment.
c
The appellant in the Civil Appeal is a company carrying on
the business of motor transport. Its motor ve.hicles operate
within the State of Haryana also. The petitioners in the Writ
Petitions are also carrying on the same kind of business in the
State of Haryana. All the motor vehicles operators are required
-
··: i
t-:<
...
to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules made
thereunder. Non-compliance with many of those who are found
guilty are liable to be punished. The Haryana Roadways is a
]) department of t!:ie State of Haryana. It dso carries on the
business of providing passenger transport facilites in competi-
tion with the appellant and the petitioners herein. It owns a
fleet of motor vehicles for the purpose of its business. The
Haryana Roadways is also subject to tte various provisions of the
Act and the rules made thereunder. The General Manger of Haryana
E Roadways is principally responsible for the pruper administration
of the Haryana Roadways.
Under section 133-A of the Act the State Government may for
the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act
establish a motor vehicles department and appoint officers·
F thereof such persons as it thinks fit. Secti~n 129 of the Act
provides that any police officer authorised in this behalf or
other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government
may, if he has reason to believe that any identification mark
carried on a motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certificate of
registration, certificate of insurance or other docUm.ent produced
to nim by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a
false document within the meaning of section 464 ·Jf the Indian
Penal Code, seize the mark of document and call upon the driver
or owner of the vehicle to accourtt for his possession of or the
presence in the vehicle of such mark or document. Under section
129-A of the Act any police offl.cer authorised in this behalf or
other person authorised in this behalf by , the State Government
•
KRISHNlt BUS SEKVICE v. STATE [VENKATARAMIAH, J. j 335
may, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or
being used in contravention of the provisions of section 2.2 or A
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 vehicle, and for this
purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider
proper for the temporary safe. custody of the vehicle. On such B·
seizure it is open to the officer concerned to lodge a prose-
cution before the magistrate competent to try it. There are
several other powers which a police officer may exercise under
the Act and the rules made thereunder against persons who are
carrying on the business of providing motor transport facilities.
c
Rule 10.2 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (as in
. force in the State of Haryana) as i t stood prfor to March 16,
1973 read as follows:
"10.2 • Classification of Officers -
D
(1) There shall be four classes of the staff, namely,
Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV.
(2) The officers included in each class and the police
powers exercisable by them under the Act, shall be as
noted below against each. The police powers exercis-
able by the officers of the Transport Department are E
in respect of Motor Vehicles Offences under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 only:
Class I
xx xx. xx
F.
Class II
(a) Secretaries, Regional Powers exercisable
Transport Authorities by Dy. Supdt. of
Police.
J (b) Extra Assistant Transport - do -
G
Controller (0)
(c) Extra As.sistant Transport - do -
Controller (T)
H
xx xx xx xx
336 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R.
A But by Notification dated· March 16, 1973, referred to above,
the Haryana Government for the Transport Department in exercise
of.its powers under section 133-A of the Act amended Rule 10.2 by
adding clause ( d) in the category of Class II Officers referred
to in Rule 10.2 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, the
relevant portion of which reads as follows :-
B
"2. ln the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 after
clause (c) unner class II in sub-rule 2 of rule 10.2 ·
the following clause (d) shall be added namely:-
(d) General Manager, Power exercisable by a
Haryana Roadways. Deputy Superintendent of
Police.
After the issue of the above Notification, the General
Manager. Haryana Roadways coumenced to exercise the powers
exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act.
,We are concerned in these cases with the validity of the
lJ above Notification dated March 16, 1973 by which the General
Mana~er, Haryana Roadways is empowered to exercise the powers of
a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act only.
The contention urged by the appellant and the petitioners in
these cases is that the appointment of the General Manager,
E Haryana Roadways, who is himself responsible for the proper
management of the activities of the Haryana Roadways and its
prosperity and profitability and who is carrying on business .in
competition with other private operators as an officer who can
exercise the powers of the Deputy Superintendent of Police under
the Ar.t is violative under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution
F and it is otherwise contrary to the object and spirit of the Act.
It is further urged that the General Manager, Haryana Roadways
would not be able to discharge his functions satisfactorily in
the in.terests of the general public since he being himself under ,
a duty to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
made thereunder in respect of _the motor vehicles of, the Haryana
J
G Roadways cannot be expected to discharge the functions of check-
ing, inspection, search and seizure regading the motor vehicles
belonging to the Haryana Roadways and to take appropriate steps
to prosecute the officers of his own department who are not
complying with the provisions of the Act. In a given case it is
likely that the General Manger himself may have to be prosecuted
H for not complying with law.
i KRISHNA BUS SERVICE v. STATE [VENKATARAMlAH, J. j 337
The powers of stopping the motor vehicles and the powers of A
inspection, search, seiZure and detention exercised under the Act
are serious restrictions on the fundamental right of the opera-
tors of motor vehicles guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. These powers can be considered as reasonable
restrictions only when they are exercised properly in the
interests of the general public. They should be reasonable both H
from the substantive as well as the procedural standpoint. Such
powers should, therefore, be entrusted to a person who is expec-
ted to exercise them fairly and without bias. The General Manager
of Haryana Roadways who. is a dval in business to the private
operators of motor vehicles in the State and is intimately
collnected with the running of motor vehicles cannot be expected C
to discharge his duties in a fair and reasonable manner. An
unobstructed. operation of the motor vehicles by private owners
operating along the same route or routes would. naturaly affect
the earnings of the Haryana Roadways. There is, therefore, every
liklihood of his being over-zealous in discharging his duties of
stopping a vehicle and in searching, seizing and detairting motor D
vehicles belonging to. others and at the same time excessively
lenient in the case of vehicles belonging to his own department.
If in discharging his duties in the case of vehicles belonging to
others he fails to give due regard to the interests of the owners
thereof he would be violating their fundamental right to carry on
business in a reasonable way. If he is too lenient in inspecting
the vehicles belonging to his own department, the interests of E
the travelling public at large would be in peril. In both the
cases there is a conflict between his duty on the one hand and
his interest on the other. Moreover administration must be rooted
in confidence and that confidence is destroyed whenpeople begin
to think that the officer concerned is biased. This is not a case
which is governed by the rule of necess~ty. As it is, there are F
many other officers who are entrusted within the powers of the
police officers under the Act. There was, therefore, no necessit"y
to appoint the General Manager of Haryana .Roadways also to
exercise the said powers. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
the appointment of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways who is
directly responsible for running its motor vehicles as one of the G
officers who can exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent
qf Police under the Act imposes an ureasona:t>le restriction on the
fundamental right of the private motor vehicles operators and is
therefore violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We
·however make it clear that the appointment of other officers of
the State Government is not bad even though the Government is the IL
owner of the vehicles as their connection with the running of the
I
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. I
A
vehicles is too remote. The appointment of the General Manager as
an officer who can exercise the powers of the Deputy Superinten-
dent of Police under the Act is also not in the interests of the
general public since the large number of motor vehicles owned by
the Haryana Roadways would not be subJect to inspection and
checking by an independent agency. Can we expect a fair investi-
gation by a police officer into a criminal case in which his own
kith and kin are involved as the accused? The position is not
different in this case. The Legislature could not have intended
while enacting section 133-A of the Act that a person who was
c himself directly responsible for the proper running of the motor
vehicles according to law could be appointed as the inspecting
and investigating officer by the State Government for the purpose
of enforcing the Act.
Our view receives support from a decision of the High Court
lJ of Allahabad in Junta Motor Transport and Another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [l970j Allahabad Law Journal, Page 810, by which
the appointment of Gazetted Officers, Station Superintendents,
Traffic Superintendents and Assistant Traffic Inspectors of Uttar
Pradesh Roadways as the prescribed authorites to enforce the
Uttar Pradesh Motor Gadi (Yatra-'kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 and the
E
rules made thereunder was held to be void.
The appeal and the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
The impugned Notification dated March 16, 1973 called the Punjab
Motor Vehicles (Haryana First Amendment) Rules,1973 by which the
General Manager, Haryana Roadways was conferred the powers
F exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act is
held to be invalid and is, therefore, quashed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
S.R. A?peal & Petitions 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