HARI OM GAUTAM Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a person providing transport service in the District of Mathura. He questioned the validity of the Order dated May 22, 1986 passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura declaring Plot Nos. 701 and 702 in the Town Area, Baldev (Mathura) as a bus stand/halting place of Baldev, where the stage carriages were directed to stand for the purpose of allowing the passengers of Baldev to get into and get down from the stage carriages in a writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 501 of 1986 filed before the High Court of Allahabad under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. That petition was dismissed by the High Court on September 8. 1980. This appeal by special leave is filed against the said decision of the High Court.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that the District Magistrate had no power to appoint any area as a bus stand under S. 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') under which he purported to pass the impugned order. According to the appellant the power to fix any area as a bus stand was vested in the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction over the area and not in the District Magistrate. The High Court was of the opinion that S. 76 of the Act conferred wide powers on the District Magistrate 'to fix the places for the bus stand/halting place'. It was further of the view that the place where the appellant and other bus operators were asked to stop their buses was only a halting place and hence the order made under S. 76 of the Act was unassailable. It further observed that since the impugned order did not specifically state that the bus operators could allow the passengers to get down and pick up the passengers, it could not be construed as an order fixing the area as a bus stand. It should be stated at this stage that after the impugned order was passed the Town Area Committee gave a contract to a private contractor to collect the fees payable by the bus operators for making use of the area in question which was within its jurisdiction for stopping their buses in accordance with the order passed by the District Magistrate. After the writ petition was filed in the High Court, the appellant has obtained an order of stay preventing the Town Area Committee from collecting the fees. Immediately after the writ petition was dismissed, the Executive Officer of the Town Area Committee, Baldev (Mathura) wrote a letter on 10-10-1986 to the President of the Mathura-Sadabad-Manikpur-Eta Motor Operators Union, Mathura requiring all the bus operators to stop their buses at the bus stand fixed by the District Magistrate. The letter reads thus:

(3.) The relevant provisions of the Act which govern the case are these. Section 68, which is in Chapter IV of the Act containing the provisions relating to 'control of transport vehicles' confers the power on the State Government to make rules for the purpose of the said chapter. Clause (r) of sub section (2) of S. 68 of the Act specifically confers on the State Government without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred under sub-sec. (1) of S. 68 of the Act the power to frame rules regarding or 'prohibiting the picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified places or in specified areas or at places other than duly notified stands or halting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage to stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified halting place.' Section 76 of the Act reads thus: