Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972), and the notification dated March 30, 1972 issued under that Section. The appellants were existing holders of stage carriage permits for operating buses on various routes in Uttar Pradesh. The impugned amendment empowered the State Government to issue a notification if it was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to grant stage carriage permits, except in respect of routes or areas for which schemes had been published under Section 68C, contract carriage permits, and public carrier permits to all eligible applicants. Upon issuance of such notification, transport authorities were required to consider applications as if sub-section (3) of Section 47, which allowed a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted, had been omitted. The State Government issued the impugned notification on March 30, 1972, directing that such permits be granted to all eligible applicants. The appellants contended before the High Court and later before the Supreme Court that the State Government issued the notification without applying its mind because a notification under Section 43A(2) could be issued only in public interest; that the deletion of Section 47(3) would remove the limit on permits for intra-region routes but might require imposition of limits for inter-region routes; and that the impugned notification violated their rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the section and the notification. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by certificate, holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned notification because it recited that the State Government was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants, thereby containing all particulars required by the statute. The Court observed that the object of the amendment was to liberalise the issue of permits and that any measure resulting in larger number of buses operating on various routes would minimise long hours of waiting. The Court found no basis for the inference that removal of limits on intra-region permits would necessitate limits on inter-region permits, as the measure was liberalising, not restrictive. On the constitutional challenge, the Court held that nothing in the notification prevented the appellants from acquiring, holding, or disposing of their property or from practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade, or business, and that enabling others to obtain permits did not constitute a violation of the appellants' rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g). Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 43A and the notification.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Law - Grant of Stage Carriage Permits - Section 43A(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as inserted by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972 - State Government's power to issue notification when of opinion that it is in public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants on non-nationalised routes - The notification which recited that the State Government was of such opinion met statutory requirement and did not suffer from non-application of mind; Held valid. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Motor Vehicles Law - Effect of Notification under Section 43A(2) - Omission of Section 47(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Removal of limit on number of stage carriage permits for intra-region routes does not imply that limit must be imposed for inter-region routes; the notification aimed to liberalise issue of permits. Held no such inference permissible. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Property and Freedom of Trade - Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of Constitution of India - Enabling others to obtain permits for running buses does not infringe existing permit holders' rights; no restriction on acquiring, holding, disposing property or carrying on occupation. Held provisions not violative of Article 19. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Validity of section 43A inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972 and the notification dated March 30, 1972 issued under that section; Whether the notification was issued without application of mind; Whether deletion of section 47(3) would require imposition of limit on inter-region routes; Whether the provisions violate Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned notification or section 43A. The notification contained all particulars required by the statute and was issued in public interest. The deletion of section 47(3) did not require imposition of limits on inter-region routes. The provisions did not violate Article 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g).
Law Points
- State Government under Section 43A(2) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1939 (as amended by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972) may issue notification to grant permits to all eligible applicants on non-nationalised routes if it is of opinion that it is in public interest
- such notification removes the limit on number of permits under Section 47(3)
- liberalisation of permits does not infringe existing permit holders' rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution
- government's opinion recited in notification is sufficient compliance with statutory requirement
