K G JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a stage carriage operator has challenged in this writ petition the validity of Rule 216(2) of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, hereinafter called the "Rules" on two grounds: (1) that it is ultra-vires of S. 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the "Act"; and' (2) that it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India and therefore void. Rule 216 as it stood prior to its substitution by Notification No.GSR 360 dated 7th October, 1969 (HD 42 TMR 68) had provided only for limiting the maximum seating accommodation of public service vehicles otner than motor cabs. Rule 216 as substituted by the said Notification reads as follows: "216, LIMIT Or SEATING CAPACITY:- "(1) Subject to the provisions cf Rule 214 regarding seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver and conductor that a Public Service Vehicle other than a Moter Cab, may be permitted to carry, shall not exceed the number determined by dividing by 59 Kilograms the difference in Kilograms between the registered laden weight less 109 Kilograms and the undaden weight of the vehicle. (2) The minimum seating capacity of the Public service Vehicle shall be directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. In all Public Service Vehicles other than motor cabs the minimum number of seats to be provided shall be as specified in column (2) of the Table below: Provided that the operator may increase the capacity consistent with the other rules relating to seating capacity and with due regard to the type of the chassis on which the body is fitted: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_384_MYSLJ2_1971Html1.htm</FRM> (3) Nothing in sub-rule (2) shall apply to, (i) stage carriages proposed to be operated exclusively in towns and cities; and (ii) stage carriages registered prior to the coming into force of the Mysore Motor Vehicles (V Amendment) Rules, 1969. Provided that when the body of a stage carriage specified in item (ii) is reconstructed, the seats shall be so arranged as to face the front and maximum number of seats to the satisfaction of the Registering Authority, shall be provided." Sub-rule (1) provides for limiting the maximum seating accommodation and that sub-rule has not been challenged before us. What has been challenged is sub-rule (2) which fixes the minimum number of seats to be provided in public service vehicles on the basis of the wheel base of their chassis. Sub-rule (3) exempts stage carriages proposed to be operated exclusively in towns and cities and stage carriages registered prior to the coming into force of the Mysore Motor Vehicles (V Amendment) Rules, 1969, from the operation of sub-rule (2).

(2.) The first question is whether the impugned rule is beyond the rule making authority of the State Government as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Chapter V of the Act has made provision for construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. S.70(1) of the Act which comes under Chapter V confers on a State Government a general power to make rules regarding the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Clause(b) of sub-sec. (2) of S.70 states that Rules made under S.70 may provide for regulation of seating arrangements in public service vehicles. The power conferred on a State Government under S.70 for regulating the construction of public service vehicles is very wide. It was not contended before us that under the Act, a State Government has no power to limit the maximum number of seats in public service vehicles. What has been sought to be done by the impugned sub-rule is the regulation of construction of public service vehicles and particularly their seating arrangements and therefore the impugned sub-rule, in our opinion, is not ultra vires of the Act.

(3.) The main question however is whether the impugned sub-rule is a reasonable restriction imposed in the interest of the general public so aa not to be violative of the freedom guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The State, however, may make any law imposing in the interest of general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred under Art.19(1)(g) No abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The test of reasonableness depends on the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, and the prevailing conditions at that time. All these factors should enter into consideration while deciding the question of the reasonableness of the restrictions when the matter comes before the Court. Vide State of Madras v. V.G.Row, AIR. 1952 SC. 196. In Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR. 1951 SC. 118. Mahajan, J., as he then was, said that reasonable restriction means: