SARDAR IQBAL SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners, who are five in number own between them a considerable number of rickshaws which they want to ply for hire within the limits of the Lucknow Municipality. Under the relevant bye-laws, however, no person may ply a rickshaw within those limits without first obtaining a license from the Municipal Board, and it is the petitioners' complaint that the Board has refused, without adequate or indeed any justification, to grant them the requisite licences, and that they are therefore unable to ply their rickshaws and are accordingly put to great loss. The Municipal Board, it may be observed, was superseded in the year 1948, and at all material times its affairs have been administered by an Administrator.

(2.) There have been a series of disputes between the Board and rickshaw-owners which go back to the year 1951, and it would, I think, be unnecessary for the purposes of this petition to refer to these disputes were it not for the fact that learned Counsel for the Board has contended that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and that they are not therefore entitled to relief. Difficulties first arose at the end of 1950 when the State Government introduced a State bus service in Lucknow. The fares charged on the routes served by these buses were considerably lower than those charged by alternative forms of conveyance; as a consequence there was unemployment among tonga-wallas and rickshaw-pullers and drivers and a demand was made that no new licences should be issued in respect of either tongas or rickshaws as any further increase in the number of licensees would only worsen the unemployment situation, On 17-1-1951, the registration number of rickshaw licences issued by the Municipal Board had reached 3152, and a decision was then taken by the Board that no fresh rickshaw licences should be issued after the registration number had reached 3250, or after 31-1-1951. It was not the practice of the Board when issuing licences to repeat the number of the licence already issued, and I am informed that although on 17-1-1951, the last licence issued was numbered 3152 the number of rickshaws actually in possession of municipal licences was in the neighbourhood of 2400, The effect of the decision of that date was therefore to increase the maximum to about 2500.

(3.) As a consequence of this order it seems that no licenses were issued after 31-1-1951, and by 1953 a large number of applications for licences which had been made after that date were pending and the applicants were pressing for the issue of licences to them. In September 1953, there was a change in policy, the Board directing that additional licences be issued provided the total number of rickshaws on the road did not exceed 3250. In 1955-56 a large number of rickshaws were found plying within municipal limits which bore licence numbers purporting to have been issued by the Lucknow District Board. That Board had not in fact issued licences in respect of these rickshaws and the Municipal Board took steps to stop them plying within municipal limits. Representations were then made to the Board by the District Board Riskshaw Owners Association as a consequence of which the question of the licensing of rickshaws by the Municipal Board was again reconsidered and it was decided in January, 1957, inter alia, that with effect from 1st April, of that year not more than five licences should be issued to the same person, and that if by limiting the number of rickshaw licences issued to a single individual the total number of licences was reduced, then licences would be issued to the fresh applicants provided that the maximum figure of 3250 was not exceeded. As a consequence of this decision some 1500 new applications for licences in respect of over 7000 rickshaws were made to the Board. The Municipal Board was of the view that a large number of these applications were made by persons who already held licences for plying rickshaws within the municipal limits or were made by benamidars on behalf of such persons, and a decision was, it appears, taken to postpone consideration of the majority of these applications but in the meantime, in order to avoid a number of rickshaw-owners being thrown out of employment, to issue licences to those persons who had previously been plying rickshaws within the municipal limits under what purported to be licences issued by the District Board of Lucknow. The petitioners were included among those persons who after 17-1-1957, had applied for licences and finding that a consideration of their application was likely to take some time three of them, petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4, applied to and obtained from the Gaon Sabha of Roop Pur Khadra licences to ply rickshaws, and it is said that these rickshaws plied within the municipal limits. These licences were subsequently cancelled whereupon these petitioners obtained similar licences from Gaon Sabha Sikanderpur Nazul which they still hold. Certain of these rickshaws had been seized by the Municipal Board and detained for varying periods of time for having been found plying within municipal limits without having licences. On 23-12-1957, the petitioners filed a petition in this Court. They contended that as they were prepared to comply with the requirements of the bye-laws and were willing to pay the requisite licence-fees, the Municipal Board had no right in law to withhold the licences; and the relief sought Was the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the Board, first, to consider their applications and to issue licences in all cases in which the requirements of the bye-laws were satisfied, and, secondly, to release the rickshaws which had been detained by the Board without the levy of any fee. Four days after the petition had been filed a fresh set of bye-laws for the regulation and control of rickshaws kept for plying for hire or for private use within the municipal limits were published. These bye-laws, which are now in force, are more elaborate than those which they have superseded and they include in particular three new bye-laws, 9, 12, and 15 (a) which read as follows :