M ASHRAF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification issued by the District Magistrate-3rd respondent as well as by regional Transport Authority (RTA), Mangalore-5th respondent to the effect that no new permits can be granted on the routes specified in the notification. The said notification purports to have been issued under Sections 115, 116 and 117 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner's case primarily in this petition is that these Sections 115 and 116 confer uncontrolled, unguided the authority and power of the authorities so are violative of Articles 14, 19 (l) (g) and 21 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that so far as the notification is concerned, it has been held by the learned Single judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2771 of 1995, dated 20-9-1995 as well as in Smt. Khathiza v District Magistrate, dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and Others , that the District magistrate has been competent to issue a notification as well as to provide for the exceptions/exemptions which have been made in favour of the existing permit holders. So far as the point of competency of District Magistrate to issue a notice and to provide for exemption to the present petition is covered by the decision of the Single Judge's decision in the above mentioned petitions and especially the decision in Smt. Khathiza's case, supra and in W. P. No. 2771 of 1995, dated 20-9-1995. The only one point that has been raised in this writ petition viz. , that provision of Sections 115, 116 and 117 of the Act are ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended before me that Section 115 confers uncontrolled and unguided powers on the District Magistrate to restrict the use of vehicles and therefore it cannot be said to be reasonable or to be based on reasonable classification. The learned Counsel contended that order impugned passed under sections 115, 116 and 117 of Motor Vehicles Act has tendency of imposing unreasonable restrictions on the petitioner's right of trade, profession or enjoyment of life. So is hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and does not come within the framework of any of the exceptional clauses to that article. In my view there is no substance in this contention. Section 115 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under;

(2.) A bare reading of this section per se reveals that District Magistrate may impose a temporary restriction for a short period i. e. ,it may be for a period of one month or less or the prohibition or restriction may be imposed for a period longer than that of one month. If it is for a period of one month or more then the prohibition or restriction has to be published in the notification in the Official Gazette but it is for a period shorter than one month, then there is no such requirement as to be published in the Official Gazette. But the local publicity to such prohibition under this Section is required to be made. A reading of this Section per se reveals that the power that has been conferred under Section-115 cannot be said to be uncontrolled and unguided. As per Section 115 the power to prohibit or restrict the user of vehicle on a road or in a specified area is exercisable subject to conditions specified in this Section. The conditions are that firstly the authority has to be satisfied about the necessity or requirement of imposition of such prohibition or restriction. It is to be specified with respect to the area or road in which restriction is sought to be imposed. While examining the question of satisfaction as to requirement of prohibition the authority is required to keep in view and to apply the yardstick of public safety, as well as of circumstances such as condition of the road or bridge etc,,in the light of the motor vehicles used i. e. , the condition of the road or bridge if it required to prohibit use of that road or bridge for short while in the public interest or of that bridge, the authority can exercise its power. So exercise of this power cannot be said to be unguided, uncontrolled or unbridled. The power can only be exercised in the public interest and is exercisable in the interest of public safety or public peace. The condition of the road is also material consideration that is to be exercised with reference to the condition of the roads, there also prevails the idea of public peace and public safety in the sense that if the condition of the road or bridge is such, driving of the vehicle on a specified road or in area or bridge is such, i. e. , is not in public interest etc. and safe for a while, vehicles in his opinion need not be driven because of the condition of the road or bridge and interest of public is likely to be damaged in whole or part on that account, the prohibition may be imposed as it is always keeping the pace with the idea of public safety and convenience. There may be certain other circumstances which may be taken into view by the authorities, the list of such circumstances cannot be exhaustive. The guidelines with broad spectrum of public interest and public convenience have been provided under the section. So the power which has been conferred on the State Government or on the authority authorised in this regard by the State Government cannot be said to be unguided or uncontrolled. These are orders in the nature of administrative orders that may be passed in the public interest. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority concerned is not specific about these things. No-doubt it is well settled principles of law that when the provisions of law confers uncontrolled and unguided powers on the authorities and furnish opportunity to act arbitrarily, then such provisions may be said to be hit by Article 14 as arbitrary action is negation of rule of law, That as regards Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles act, it furnishes a complete guidelines, specifies conditions in which the power under Section 115 is to be exercised by the authority be it State Transport Authority or Regional Transport authority or the Government or the District Magistrate who has special authority as empowered by the State Government. It has to exercise its subject to those terms and conditions as specified under Section 115. In this view of the matter in my opinion, the provisions under Section 115 cannot be held to be ultra vires or to be hit by Article 14, 19 (1) (g) or 21. Any action of authority whether it is in consonance with and or in keeping pace with the requirements of law, that is a different question. It is nobody's case that authority did not act keeping pace with the requirements of Section 115 and the conditions specified thereunder. In this view of the matter in my opinion the second ground that Section 115 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is hit by article 14 or 19 is without any substance and has got no merits and so far as the power of District Magistrate is concerned there is power as held by this Court. In my opinion there is no substance in this writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed herewith.