SATYA RANJAN ROY Vs. COMMR OF POLICE CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in this case are briefly as follows: Tollygunj is a suburb of Calcutta. Prior to 31-3-1953, it had its own Municipality. By notification No. M--IM-79/52(1), dated 31-3-1953, issued by the Government of West Bengal, it was brought within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of Calcutta. Under the Calcutta Hackney Carriage Act, 1919 (Bengal Act 1 of 1919), every 'Hackney Carriage' in Calcutta is required to be annually registered by a Registering Officer, who is a Deputy Commissioner of Police appointed by the State Government. Under Section 70 (read with the provisions of Chap. VII) of the said Act, the provisions are applicable to Rikshaws under Section 2(b) of the said Act, the Government is empowered to include in or exclude from, Calcutta (or any town or local area to which the Act is extended), any local area in the vicinity. By notification No. 4073-P1 dated 10-8-1935, various Municipalities in the vicinity of Calcutta including the Tollygunj Municipality were included within the definition of Calcutta for the purposes of the said Act. The result was that after that date, all Rikshaws plying within the Tollygunj Municipality for hire, were required to be registered under the said Act. The twentyone petitioners before me, allege that they are owners of Rikshaws which were plying for hire within the Municipal area of Tollygunj. It is stated that prior to the amalgamation, about 500 Rikshaws were plying in Tollygunj. It is quite clear, that such Rikshaws had to be registered under the said Act. In fact however, only 168 Rikshaws plying in Tollygunj were so registered. If it be true that the remaining number also were plying for hire, they did so in clear contravention of the provisions of the said Act. None of the petitioners before me were so registered.

(2.) Under Section 71 of the said Act, the Provincial Government is empowered to make by-laws for carrying out the provisions and intentions of the Act. By-law No. 13-A which has been framed under Section 71, provides that the Registering Authority shall not register any Rikshaw intended to be used in Calcutta if he considers that there is already an adequate number of Rikshaws intended to be used in Calcutta.

(3.) After the amalgamation, the Corporation of Calcutta granted trade licences and Road Licences in respect of a number of Rikshaws (Under Sections 208, 212, 218, 219, Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951). It is however not clear as to how many licences were in fact issued. In July 1953 the Rikshaw owners applied for registration under the said Act and for Traffic Police license under Section 9. On or about 24-11-1953, a conference was held, attended by the Commissioner of Police, the Joint Secretary to the Local Self-Government Department the Commissioner, Calcutta Corporation, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Public Vehicle Department and others. This conference reviewed the position that had arisen, as a result of the application for new licenses from the Rikshaw-owners of Tollygunj. The position was that there existed at the time 6,000 Rikshaws registered under the said Act, including 168 Rikshaws, running in the Tollygunj area. The Commissioner of Police pointed out that for reasons of public safety it was not possible to increase the number of Rikshaws in the City of Calcutta beyond the existing number. It was however suggested that if it was feasible to restrict the plying of Rikshaws to the limits of Tollygunj, a number of new licences could be issued. It was however decided that before doing anything further, a survey of these Rikshaws should be made jointly by the Police and the Corporation Authorities.