Skip to content


Prakash Chandra Vishnu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 128 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1959All205
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 53(2) and 68; Motor Vehicles Rules, 1939 - Rule 94
AppellantPrakash Chandra Vishnu Kumar
RespondentState of U.P. and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.N. Katju, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJunior Standing Counsel
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
(i) motor vehicles - power to impose conditions - section 53 (2) of motor vehicles act, 1939 - condition imposed by regional transport authority regarding the kind of good to be carried by carrier - held, condition cannot be said to be unreasonable. (ii) maintenance and submission of log book - section 53(2) of motor vehicles act, 1939 - regional transport authority cannot impose condition on private carrier under section 53(2) for maintenance and submission of copy of log book. - .....constitution subject to his finding that a certain condition laid down in the permit issued by the regional transport authority to the petitioner was invalid.2. the petitioner firm was granted a private carrier's permit by the regional transport authority, kumaun region. the conditions mentioned in permit are 'shall ply on specified route. shall not ply on hire or reward. shall not carry restricted commodities without permit. rules of the road must be observed. shall observe all the conditions laid down under section 59(3) to (f) of m. v. act 1939. application for renewal of permit should be presented before this authority at least one month before the date of expiry. a log book should also be maintained and kept with the vehicle. a copy of the log book should also be submitted to this.....
Judgment:

Raghubar Dayal, J.

1. This is a special appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Tandon dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution subject to his finding that a certain condition laid down in the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority to the petitioner was invalid.

2. The petitioner firm was granted a private carrier's permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Kumaun Region. The conditions mentioned in permit are

'Shall ply on specified route. Shall not ply on hire or reward. Shall not carry restricted commodities without permit. Rules of the road must be observed. Shall observe all the conditions laid down under Section 59(3) to (f) of M. V. Act 1939. Application for renewal of permit should be presented before this authority at least one month before the date of expiry. A log book should also be maintained and kept with the vehicle. A copy of the log book should also be submitted to this office fortnightly according to the columns prescribed by the Rule T. A.'

3. The petitioner prayed by his petition under Article 226 that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the conditions imposed in the private carrier's permit of the petitioner restricting the petitioner from carrying the goods owned by him both ways on the route granted to the petitioner and also quashing the condition directing the petitioner to maintain a Jog book and to keep it in his vehicle and to submit a copy of the log book fortnightly to the office of the Regional Transport Authority. Besides these two prayers two other prayers were made for the issue of a writ of mandamus.

4. The learned Judge held that the condition about the Jog book could be legally imposed and that the condition restricting the petitioner to the carrying of empty used bardana and empty used tins of his own on a return journey was invalid. This condition was mentioned in the permit under the heading 'Nature of goods to be carried'.

5. Mr. Katju, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged two points at the hearing of this appeal. One is that the provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 53 about the imposing of conditions relating to the description of goods to be carried laid an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right of carrying on his trade. The other is that the condition about themaintenance of a log book etc. cannot be imposed tinder Sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

6. We are of opinion that the provision in Subsection (2) of Section 53 for the imposition of condition relating to the description of goods to be carried is a reasonable restriction. Section 52 lays down what an application for private carriers permit should contain, and one of the matters to be mentioned in the application is the nature of the goods which the applicant expects normally to carry in connection with his trade or business. It may be mentioned that this 'private carriers permit' is an expression which refers to a permit to use a transport vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with trade or business carried on by the applicant.

When the permit is for such a purpose it is necessary that the Regional Transport Authority should know what sort of goods are to be carried in connection with that trade or business. It is left to the applicant for such a permit to mention the nature of goods which he expects normally to carry in connection with that trade. The Regional Transport Authority has to see whether the list of goods which he mentions as likely to be carried in connection with his trade or business contains any such item which has no bearing on that trade or business.

Sub-section (2) to Section 53 requires it to lay down as a condition the kind of goods to be carried and which, according to the opinion of the Regional Transport Authority, must be those which are carried normally in connection with that trade or business-The condition therefore cannot be said to be unreasonable. In fact it is usually to be in accordance with what the applicant for the permit himself has mentioned. It may be that sometimes the Regional Transport Authority does not agree with the applicant about the nature of goods necessary to be carried in connection with the trade and mentions that article is not to be carried. That may give an occasion for the applicant to seek redress but merely because the Regional Transport Authority may commit some error does not make the provision itself to amount to an unreasonable restriction on the carrying on of trade.

7. We agree with the second contention of Mr. Katju that, among the conditions, it cannot be laid down that the permit-holder should maintain a log book and submit its copy to the Regional Transport Authority periodically. Sub-section (2) of Section 53 does not mention such a condition. The learned junior Standing Counsel refers to Rule 94 of the Rules framed under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Rule provides that a Regional Transport Authority may by general or special order require the owner of any transport vehicle to maintain records and submit return in respect of the vehicle in such form as the Authority may specify.

Clause (z) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 provides for the making of Rules with respect to the records to be maintained and the return to be furnished by the owners of transport vehicles. The expression 'transport vehicles' includes the vehicles for which a private carriers permit is sought. Section 52 itself mentions that the application is for a permit to use a transport vehicle. It follows therefore that Rule 94 is validly made and does apply to a vehicle for which private' carriers permit is issued. This Rule however empowers the Regional Transport Authority to make a general or special order in this respect but does not authorise it to lay it down as a condition.

Conditions can be laid down only in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 53. In fact the order about the maintenance of a log book should have been mentioned against serial item No. 8 of the permit which is headed as 'The records to bemaintained and the date on which returns are to be made to the Transport Authority.' It follows that sol much of the portion in the conditions of the permit as relates to the maintenance of the log book and the submission of its copy should be noted against serial item No. 8 and should be struck off from the condition noted against item No. 9 of the permit.

8. It has been held by the learned Judge that the restriction on the nature of goods to be carried on a return journey was invalid. This finding has not been challenged for the state.

9. For the reasons stated above we allow this appeal and order that a direction will be issued to the respondent No. 2 to quash the expression 'on return journey to bring empty used bardana and empty used tins of his own' under the heading 'Nature of goods to be carried' against item No. 6 of the permit, and that a further direction will be issued to quash the expressions 'A log book should also be maintained and kept with the vehicle. A copy of the log book should also be submitted to this office-fortnightly according to the columns prescribed by the R.T.A.' under the conditions noted against item No. 9 of the permit. We further order that the latter expression which is deleted from the conditions be noted under the heading 'The records to be maintained and the date on which returns are to be made to the Transport Authority'' against item No. 8 of the permit. In the circumstances of this appeal we order the parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //