Skip to content


State Vs. Kanaiyalal Prabhudas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1964)5GLR158
AppellantState
RespondentKanaiyalal Prabhudas
Excerpt:
- - so far as this part of the notification goes it is clearly outside the scope of the rule and must be hold to be invalid......had not worn a cap and had also not put on a uniform as laid down by a notification issued by the regional transport authority ahmedabad.2. under rule 26(18) of the bombay motor vehicles rules 1959 a driver of a motor cab shall be cleanly dressed and in the manner in which the regional transport authority may specify. by a notification the regional transport authority prescribed the head-wear long pant and coat for the dress of the drivers of the public service motor vehicles. he also prescribed that they shall wear the uniform prescribed by him namely a khakhi coat with collar and two upper pockets with flaps etc. the learned magistrate observed that such a notification was not within the scope of the rule as it dealt with something beyond the scope of the rule and therefore invalid......
Judgment:

V.B. Raju, J.

1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 26(18) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 The charge against the respondent was that the respondent who was the driver of an auto rikshaw had not worn a cap and had also not put on a uniform as laid down by a notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority Ahmedabad.

2. Under Rule 26(18) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 a driver of a motor cab shall be cleanly dressed and in the manner in which the Regional Transport Authority may specify. By a notification the Regional Transport Authority prescribed the head-wear long pant and coat for the dress of the drivers of the public service motor vehicles. He also prescribed that they shall wear the uniform prescribed by him namely a Khakhi coat with collar and two upper pockets with flaps etc. The learned Magistrate observed that such a notification was not within the scope of the Rule as it dealt with something beyond the scope of the Rule and therefore invalid. He therefore acquitted the respondent.

3. The charge against the respondent was that he had no head dress. The charge was also that he had not put on the uniform prescribed in the notification. As regards the prescribed uniform I agree with the learned Magistrate. The rule quoted above does not authorise the Regional Transport Authority to prescribe a uniform. Prescribing a uniform is different from prescribing the manner of dress. If the uniform is prescribed that would be prescribing the details of the dress and not merely the manner. That would be prescribing the materials of the dress and the manner in which the materials have to be stitched. For instance the Regional Transport Authority has prescribed that there should be a Khakhi coat with two upper pockets with flaps and with centre buttons. In the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940 there was a rule regarding the manner of dress and also a rule regarding the prescription of the uniform. Rule 83(iv) of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules 1940 provided that the driver or a conductor of a public vehicle shall be cleanly dressed and in the manner in which the Regional Transport Authority may specify. Rule 88(16) of the said rules provided that the Regional Transport Authority may in his discretion specify that drivers and conductors of public service vehicles shall wear a uniform of a type approved by such authority. The former rule has been incorporated in Rule 26(18) of the Rules of 1959 but the latter rule namely Clause (16) of Rule 88 is not found in the Rules of 1959. This again supports the view that under the rules of 1959 the Regional Transport Authority may prescribe the manner of the dress but cannot prescribe the uniform.

4. In the instant case the Regional Transport Authority has done both. He has prescribed the manner of the dress namely that the dress should consist of a head-wear long pant and coat etc. So far as this part of the notification goes the notification issued by the regional transport Authority is within the scope of the Rule. But he further proceeded to lay down the uniform to be worn. So far as this part of the notification goes it is clearly outside the scope of the Rule and must be hold to be invalid. But as already observed when he laid down the manner of the dress namely that the dress should consist of a head-wear long pant and coat he did not act beyond the scope of the rule. In the instant case the respondent did not have any head-wear at all. He has therefore contravened the valid portion of the notification.

The appeal is therefore allowed and the order of the acquittal of the respon-dprif is set aside. The respondent is convicted under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 26(18) of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Rules 1959 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- in default seven days simple imprisonment.


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