CHACKO Vs. PUNNEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The fate of this petition will essentially depend on the question whether S. 47 (1) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is intra vires of the Constitution or not. If the said sub-section is ultra vires, the changes are that no other question will arise for consideration and that this petition will have to be allowed".

(2.) S. 47 (1) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, reads as follows: "47 (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit have regard to the following matters, namely (e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services and in particular of unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services". In AIR 1951 Allahabad 257 (FB) paragraphs 63-66, the judgment dealt with clauses (d), (e) and (f) of S. 47 (1) and said: "clauses (d), (e) and (f) are clearly matters which must be considered by the Regional Transport Authority in issuing, or refusing to issue, a permit, and I cannot see how they can be said to be contrary to the provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution. " In AIR 1953 Madras 279, paragraph 32, a different view has been expressed: "can transport authorities take into consideration that the existing operators are running other services which are not remunerative and can they grant permits to them with a view to compensate them for those unremunerative services? This will be clearly opposed to Art. 19 (6)under which the restriction imposed must be in the interest of the public and not in the interests of particular individuals". "3. In view of the conflict of opinion and the importance of the question I refer the petition for disposal to a Division bench of this Court. " 2. We have gone into the question in detail and our conclusion is that S. 47 (1) (e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is intra vires of the Constitution and that we must respectfully decline to adopt the reasoning in AIR 1953 Madras 279.