Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the alteration of a bus-stand by the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, which the appellant, a bus-stand owner, challenged as ultra vires and infringing his right to carry on business. The appellant had a bus-stand that was originally licensed by the Tanjore Municipality, but after a legal dispute, he obtained a lease from the true owner and constructed the bus-stand. In 1950, the Regional Transport Authority declared the bus-stand unsuitable and altered the starting and terminal points for public service vehicles, leading the appellant to seek a writ of certiorari from the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the authority's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling, stating that the amendment to Rule 268 was within the powers of the Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court reasoned that the alteration of bus-stands was not foreign to the control of transport vehicles and that the restriction imposed was reasonable in the interest of public convenience. The court also found that the Transport Authority had complied with the consultation requirement by consulting the Municipality, which was deemed appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Carry on Profession - Reasonableness of Restriction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 19(1)(g) - The restriction on the use of the bus-stand for picking up or setting down passengers for outward journeys was not unreasonable and did not infringe the appellant's fundamental rights. The court held that the authority had the power to impose such restrictions in the interest of public convenience (Paras 1-2). B) Administrative Law - Rule-Making Authority - Ultra Vires - Madras Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 68 - The amendment to Rule 268 was within the powers conferred by Section 68(2)(r) of the Act, allowing the Transport Authority to regulate bus-stands. The court held that the fixing and alteration of bus-stands was not foreign to the control of transport vehicles (Paras 3-4). C) Administrative Law - Consultation Requirement - Compliance with Rule 268 - Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, Rule 268 - The Transport Authority complied with the consultation requirement by consulting the Municipality before altering the bus-stand. The court held that the consultation was discretionary and did not invalidate the resolution (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment to Rule 268 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, empowering the Transport Authority to alter starting places or termini of vehicles was ultra vires and whether it infringed the appellant's right to carry on profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the amendment to Rule 268 was valid and did not infringe the appellant's rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Law Points
- ultra vires
- public convenience
- reasonable restriction
- consultation requirement
- jurisdiction of Transport Authority
