Holding

The roster system is a lawful and reasonable exercise of the powers conferred on the Deputy Conservator and the police under the Indian Ports Act, Bombay Port Rules, the Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962 and Section 67 of the Bombay Police Act.

Summary

Mahesh Travels & Tours and other launch operators ran joy‑rides from the Gateway of India to Elephanta Island. A cooperative association of launch owners used a voluntary roster to avoid competition, but the appellants were excluded. The Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust, on police direction, imposed a compulsory roster system to allocate time slots at the landing place and the police began arresting launch employees who ignored it. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the police and port authority’s power to enforce the roster; the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the relevant statutes authorised such regulation. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Deputy Conservator and police had statutory authority under the Indian Ports Act, Bombay Port Rules, the Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962 and Section 67 of the Bombay Police Act to prepare and enforce the roster. The Court held that the roster is a reasonable method of regulating traffic and preventing congestion, that it is within the powers conferred by the statutes, and that it does not impermissibly restrict the appellants’ right to carry on business. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust has statutory authority to devise and impose a roster system for launch services.
Whether the police, under Section 67 of the Bombay Police Act, can enforce such a roster.
Whether the roster system amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the appellants' right to carry on business.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Act, 1951s. 67(b), s. 67(c)
Bombay Port Ruless. 19, s. 4
Indian Ports Act, 1908s. 6(1)(k)
Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962s. 19, s. 4, s. 6, s. 7

Subjects

roster systemport regulationlaunch servicespublic landing placepolice powerscongestionequitable accessstatutory authorityBombay Police ActIndian Ports ActPassenger Boat Rules

Judgment

MAHESH TRAVELS & TOURS & ANR. ETC.
A
v.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

MAY 1, 1989

[R.S. PATHAK, CJ. AND G.L. OZA, J.] B

Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 67-Police authorities-Right
..of-To prepare and enforce roster system for operating launch services.

- Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962: Rules 4, 6, 7 and
19-Regu/qtion of the use of landing place by launches-Framing of C
roster and its imposition-Only method of regulation.

The appellants were operating launch services for joy rides, film
shooting, etc. from Appollo Pier or Gateway of India to Elephanta
Island in Bombay. Respondent 7 was a cooperative association of
launch owners also engaged in the same activities. The members he- D
longing to the associations were operating launch services turn by turn
on voluntary roster system to avoid unhealthy competition.

When efforts were made by the police and the Port Trust
Authorities to resolve the difference in the operation of launch services
between the association and the appellants failed, a roster system was E
chalked out on the direction of the Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port
Trust which was sought to be enforced by the police. When some emp-
loyees working in the launches were arrested for failure to act according
to the roster system, the appellants tiled writ petitions claiming that the
police and the Port Trust Authorities had no authority to compel them
to follow the roster system. F

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the
Bombay Port Trust Rules conferred powers upon the Deputy Conser-
vator to give directions for berthing and for mooring and unmooring
the vessels in the Port, and that apart the police and the Port Trust
Authority had adequate powers under the Port of Bombay Passenger G
Boat Rules, 1962 and section 67 of the Bombay Police Act to regulate
the manner in which the launches carried Passengers.

In the appeals to this Court, ·it was contended on behalf of the
appellants that: (1) the Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust,
respondent No. 3 was not empowered in law to devise an order of the H
825
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
~
A imposition of a roster, and that this action was beyond the powers
conferred by the Indian Ports Act 1908, the Bombay Port Rules and the
Port of Bombay Passengers Rules 1962. (2) Respondent jlio. 3 had
purported to act under Rules 4 and 19 of the Bombay Port Rules, Rule 4
of the Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, and section 7 of the
Bombay Police Act In having the roster system enforced by the Ins-
B pector of Police. (3) The roster has tendency to prohibit trade and the )..._
power to regulate Is being misused as a power to prohibit. (4) Thet.
Imposition of the roster is too severe a measure to deal with the simple
problem of overcrowding and chaos and touting for passengers, (5) The
provocation for devising and imposing a roster was the complaint made
by the appellant's trade rivals. and (6) The roster has been prepared
C and is being enforced without recourse to any statutory provision enabl-
-
ing respondent No. 3 to devise it and impose it. Ji(

Dismissing the appeals, the Court,

HELD: 1. The roster system provides for the regulation of
D traffic, so that each launch obtains an opportunity of access to the
landing place. This is not a distribution of business, but a distribution of
the time for which the landing place can be used, and therefore, a
regulation of the use of the landing place. The roster is intended to give
effect to Rule 4 of the Port of Bombay Passenger Boats Rules, 1962.
There is no reason why recourse to a roster system sbould be considered
E as unreasonable. [830C. Fl

2. The dominant purpose of the regulation of the use of the land-
ing place by the launches is to prevent congestion and a possible breach
of peace. The real purpose that the roster is intended to serve, is to
ensure the even flow oftr'!ffic at landing,places. [830H; 831A]
F
Smt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India & Anr., [1979] 2 SCC
491; Brownells Limited v. The Ironmongers' Wages Board-Brownells
Limited v. The Drapers' Wages Board, 11950] 81 C.L.R. 108 and
Hanson v. Radcliffe Urban District Council, [1922] 2 Ch. 490
inapplicable.
G
3. All the launches owners have equitable access to the landing
place and if the other conditions for plying the launches, such as holding
of a proper licence, are satisfied, there is no reason why the launches,
turn by turn, cannot avail of the facility of an equitable opportunity to
use the landing place. [831C-D]
H
MAHESH TRAVELS & TOURS v. COMMR. OF POLICE [PATHAK,CJ .] 827

4(a) There is no excessive invasion of the appellants Fundamental
A
Right to carry on business. [831E]

4(b) What should be the duration for which the appellants may be
allowed to use the landing place, and what should be the tum in which
such user may be permitted is essentially a matter for the judgment of

. the authorities concerned. It is not possible for the Court to adjudicate
. on this point. [831E-F] ·

5. The disputes between the parties in relation to the appli-
B

cation of the roster is not a matter on which this Court will readily
enter. [831G]

6. The imposition of a roster is reasonable and the power to
c
impose a roster can he spelt out from the
powers conferred on the
authorities under the relevant statutory provisions. The roster is only
one method ofregulation. [831H; 832AJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. D
3008-3009 of 1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.83 of the Bombay
-\·· High Court in Appeal No. 880 of 1983.

Kapil Sibal, Harish Gajtiani, Rajiv Datta and Nitin Rout for the E
appellants.

Shanti Bhushan, J. Makhija, Mrs. A.K. Verma and D.N. Misra
for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

G.B. Sathe and A.S. Bhasme for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5. F

~ K.K. Sanghi, Brij Bhushan and Anil Kumar Gupta for Respon-
dent No. 7.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
PATHAK, CJ; These appeals are directed against an order of
the Bombay High Court dismissing in limine the appeals filed by the
appellants herein against the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing
their writ petitions challenging the right of the police authorities to
prepare and enforce a roster system for operating launch services bet-
ween Gateway of India at Bombay and Elephanta Island. H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A The appellants are operating launch services for joy rides, film +
shootings, etc. from Apollo Pier or Gateway of India to Elephanta
Island, and respondent No. 7 is a cooperative association of launch
owners also engaged in the same activity. It appears that originally the
appellants were desirous of acquiring membership of this association
but were denied entry, and thereafter it was the association which
B wanted the appellants to join its membership but the appellants .
declined the offer. The members belonging to the association were }--
operating launch services tum by tum on a voluntary roster system t~
avoid unhealthy competition. It appears that when the efforts made by
the police and the Port Trust Authorities to resolve the differences in
the operation of launch services between the association and the
appellants failed, a roster system was chalked out on the direction of
-
c the Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust (Respondent No. 3)
which was sought to be enforced by the police. When some employees
working in their launches were arrested for failure to act according to
the roster system, the appellants filed writ petitions claiming that the
police and the Port Trust authorities had no authority to compel them
D to follow the roster system. The High Court dismissed the writ peti-
tions holding that the Bombay Port Rules conferred powers upon the
Deputy Conservator to give directions for berthing and for mooring
and unmooring the vessels in the Port and, that apart; the police and
the Port Trust authorities had adequate powers under the Port of
Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962 and Section 67 of the Bombay
+-
E Police Act to regulate the manner in which the launches carried
passengers.

The only point for consideration in these appeals is whether the
Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust and/or the police had the
power to prepare and enforce the roster system.
F
The Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962 have been
framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by ~
Section 6(1)(k) of the Indian Ports Act 1908:

G
6(1) "The Government may, in addition to any rules which
it may make under any other enactment for the time being
in force, make such rules, consistent with this Act, as it
thinks necessary for any of the following purposes, namely:
~-~ -·'
~ ·tj,'

H
MAHESH TRAVELS & TOURS v. COMMR. OF POLICE [PATHAK,CJ. I 829

(k) for licensing and regulating catamarans plying for hire,
A
and flats and cargo, passenger and other boats plying,
whether for hire or not, and whether regularly or only
occasionally, in or partly within and partly without any
such port and for licensing and regulating the crews of any
such vessels, and for determining the quantity of cargo or
number of passengers or of the crew to be carried by any B
such vessels; and may by such rules provide for the feeds
payable in respect of any suh license, and in the case of
vessels plying for hire, for the rates of hire to be charged
and the conditions under which such vessels shall be com-
pelled to ply for hire, and further for the conditions under
which any licence may be revoked;"
c
~ Rule 4 of the Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962 pres-
cribes that boats plying for hire shall not Jay beside the landing place
longer than necessary and shall obey orders of the police for regulating
the traffic. Rule 6 forbids the tindals and the boatmen to tout for hire
near the landing place. D

Rule 4 of the Bombay Port Rules framed by the Bombay Port
Trust in exercise of powers conferred under the Indian Ports Act, 1908
~· prescribes that all vessels within the port shall be bound to take up
such berths as may be appointed for them by the Deputy Conservator
and shall change their berths when required by the authorities. Rule 19 E
thereof provides that all vessels within the port shall moor and unmoor
or anchor in accordance with the orders of the Deputy Conservator.

Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 67 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
provide:

67. "It shall be the duty of a Police Officer-

(b) to keep order in the streets and at and within public G
bathing, washing and landing places, fairs, temples and all
other places of public resort and in the neighbourhood of
places of public worship, during the time of public worship;

(c) to regulate resort to public bathing, washing and land-
ing places, to prevent overcrowding thereat and in public H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A ferry-boats and, to the best of his ability, to prevent the +
infraction of any rule or order lawfully made for obser-
vance by the public at any such place or on any such boat."

It is contended by learned counsel for the· appellants that the
Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust, respondent No. 3 is not
B empowered in law to devise on order of the imposition of a roster. It is
urged that this action is beyond the powers conferred by the Indian~ ~
Ports Act, the Bombay Ports Rules and the Port of Bombay Passenger
Boat Rules. We see no force in this contention. The roster system
provides for the regulation of traffic, so that each launch obtains an
opportunity of access to the landing place. This is not a distribution of
business but a distribution of the time for which the landing place can
c be used, and therefore, a regulation of the use of the landing place.
Rule 4 of the Port of Bombay Passenger Boats Rules, 1962 provides 'I.
that boats plying for hire should not lay along side landing places
longer than necessary and must obey the orders of the police for regu-
lating traffic. The boat shall not-·be laid longer than actually necessary
D to embark or land passengers and their luggage, but must be kept off at
a distance of at least 30 metres from the landing place or gangway
ladders so as not to obstruct the approach thereto. The licencees or
other attendants of the boat are required to obey all orders given to
them by the police for the regulation of the traffic at the landing places J-_
or gangways of vessels. Consistent with the provisions of Rule 4, which
E are plainly intended for the maintenance of order, is rule 6 which
prohibits tindals and boatmen tout for hire near the landing places to the
annoyance of people passing by, and rule 7 prohibits them from carry-
ing on the business of a hawker. The roster is intended to give effect to
Rule 4, and we see no reason why recourse to a roster system should
be considered as unreasonable. x
F
The second contention of learned counsel for the appellants is
that the respondent No. 3 has purported to act under Rules 4 and 19 of
the Bombay Port Rules, Rule 4 of the Passenger Boat Rules ands. 67
...
of the Bombay Police Act in having the roster system enforced by the
Inspector of Police. We have considered those provisions, but we are
G not convinced that the context in which those provisions operate is in
any manner inconsistent with the framing of a roster and its imposi-
tion for regulating the use of the landing place by the launches. On the
contrary, they contemplate a situation, and provide for just the exer-
cise of power, which underlies the adoption of a roster system. The
-
dominant purpose of the regulation of the use of the landing place by
H the launches is to prevent congestion and a possible breach of peace.
MARESH TRAVELS& TOURS v. COMMR.OFPOLICE [PATHAK,CJ.] 831

l The submission that the roster has been devised for the purpose of A
· bringing about a distribution of passengers ignores the real purpose
that the roster is intended to serve, namely to ensure the even flow of
traffic at landing places. An attempt has been made to show that the
roster was prompted by malice, and we are referred to Smt. S.R.
Venkataraman v. Union of India & Anr., [1979] 2 SCC 491, but we see
nothing to support the plea.' We cannot accept that an ulterior B
--<'. motive-the regulation of business-is behind the roster. Browne/ls
4imited v. The Ironmongers' Wages Board, Brownel/s Limited v. ThP
Drapers' Wages Board, [1950] 81 C.L.R. 108 and Hanson v. RadclifJe
Urban District Council, [1922] 2 Ch. 490 do not help the appellants.

It is then urged that the roster has the tendency to prohibit trade
and the power to regulate is being misused as a powe: to prohibit. C
There is a fallacy in the argument. There is no prohibition of the
business at all. All the launch owners hiive equitable access to the
landing place and if the other conditions for plying the launches, such
as holding of a proper,licence, are satisfied, there is no reason why the
launches, tum by tum, cannot avail of the facility of an equitable D
opportunity to use the landing place.

It is said then that the. imposition of the roster is too severe a
measure to deal with the simple problem of overcrowding and chaos
and touting for passengers. This is a matter for the judgment of the
authority concerned and ex-facie we do not see any ground for holding E
that the roster system is not reasonable in the circumstances. There is
no excessive invasion of the appellants' Fundamental Right to carry on
their business. What should be the duration for which the appellants
may be allowed to use the landing place, and what should be the turn
in which such user may be permitted is essentially a matter for the
judgment of the authorities concerned. It is not possible for the Court F
to adjudicate on this point.

Learned counsel for the appellants complains thiit the provoca-
tion for devising and imposing a roster was the complaint made by the
appellants' trade rivals. The disputes between the parties in relation to
the application of the roster is not a matter on which this Court will G
readily enter.

Finally, it is contended for the appellants that the roster has been
prepared and is being imposed without recourse to any statutory provi-
sion enabling the third respondent to devise it and impose it. It seems
to us that the imposition of a roster is reasonable and the power to H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 2 S.C.R.

A impose a roster can be spelt out from the powers conferred on the
authorities under the statutory provisions already referred to. The +
roster is only one method of regulation. It may: be feasible and fruitful
in a certain set of circumstances. In another set of circumstances it may
be more appropriate to adopt some other principle for resolving the
problem of a large number of launches using a limited landing place. It
B is apparent that passengers can be invited into the lauches only when a
boat is standing against the jetty, and it would be a matter for the 'r--
launch owner to ensure that he has a sufficient number of passenger.
by the time indicated in the roster for berthing his launch at the land:

c
ing place. It must be remembered that Rule 4 envisages an opportunity
to the owner of the boat to embark passengers. The opportunity is not
intended for the purpose of keeping the boat at the landing place for so
long a period of time that it can fill up with passengers, The time
-
period is to be determined by the neecl to keep the traffic moving. The
circumstances that the boat may come in and stay no longer than is ~
necessary to pick up the passengers indicates that the emphasis is on
the maintenance of orderly traffic and the prevention of congestion at
D, the landing place.

We see no substance in these appeals and'we are of opinio.n that
they must be dismissed.

A number of suggestion were made by learned counsel for the
4-.
E appellants by way of settling the controversy between the parties in
regard to the use of the landing place and devising arrangements for
securing optimum access for each boat. These suggestions, it seems to
us, can be made before respondent No. 3, and it is open to him to ~
consider what would be the most equitable arrangement.
F In the result the appeals are dismissed but there is no order as to x
costs.

N.V.K. Appeals dismissed. '