LALHLIMPUIA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the validity and legality of the notifications under Memo No. TRF-A/RO-53/2008/807 dated 11th September, 2009 and No. TRF-A/RO-5 3/2008/ 878 dated 13th October, 2009 issued under the hand and seal of the respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Aizawl District, Aizawl and Notification under Memo No. D.26017/1/2006-TRP dated 14th December, 2009 issued by Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Transport Department, Mizoram, Aizawl has been challenged by which plying of taxies in group (A, B and C) in alternate day excluding Saturday and Govt. holidays within the city of Aizawl has been provided in other words mandated.

(2.) The petitioners herein are all owners-cum-drivers. Each of them obtained contract carriage permits of taxi from respondent No. 5, the Secretary, State Transport Authority under the provisions of Section 74(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 89(1)(b) of the Mizoram Motor Vehicles Rules 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for plying taxi within the Aizawl city wherein road area etc. have been specified with terms and conditions, Joint Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Transport Department by a notification under memo No. B. 12012/19/ 04-TRF dated 22nd August, 2008 in partial modification of the earlier notification dated 25-9-2007 by virtue of authority given by the Governor of Mizoram authorized the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Aizawl to exercise powers under Sections 112, 115, 116, 117 and 201 of the Act with immediate effect and until further order. Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Aizawl District, Aizawl pursuant to the said notification as indicated issued a notification under Memo No. TRF-A/RO-5 3/2008/807 dated 11th September, 2009 in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Act grouping the taxies plying within the Aizawl city into 3 (three) groups and allowed each group of taxi to ply in alternate day minus the Government holidays in view of congestion of vehicle within the Aizawl city, safety of the people at large and convenience of the traffic. In the notification it is indicated that strong public support and opinion of many other organizations, prompted issue of such notification in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Act. The notification was to take effect on and from 14-9-2009 until further order. Respondent No. 4 by another notification under Memo No. TRF-A/ RO-53/2008/878 dated 13th October, 2009 extended the operation of the notification dated 11th September, 2009. Subsequently, Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Transport Department, respondent No. 2 herein issued another notification under Memo No. D.26017/1/2006-TRP dated 14th December, 2009 dividing the taxies into 3 (three) groups 'A', 'B' and 'C' plying within the Aizawl city giving effect to it on and from 14-12-2009 until further order. The notification indicates the days in which each group of taxi is required to ply. The notification also provides that the restriction indicated therein, in plying the group of taxi shall not be applicable in all Government holidays and Saturday. The notification dated 14-12-2009 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Transport Department has been published in the Mizoram extraordinary on 10th February, 2010.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioners that though Section 115 of the Act empowers the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government to order prohibition or restriction in the interest of public safety or convenience, nature of road or bridge in driving of motor vehicles or any specified class or description of motor vehicles or use of the trailers either generally in a specified area of or a specified road by putting traffic signs as required under Section 116 of the Act by publishing in official gazette, such prohibition or restriction must be on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government or the authority concerned else not. By issuing notification by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4, grouping the taxies plying within the Aizawl city into 3 (three) groups that too on alternative day except Govt. holidays violated the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution since the notification has debarred the petitioners to do their business in taxi and earn their livelihood and therefore, the notifications are bad in law and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is also contended by the petitioners that respondent Nos. 2 and 4 before issuing those notifications by virtue of Section 115 of the Act did not afford any opportunity of being heard whereby the principle of natural justice has been violated. The respondent authorities also disregarded the maxim audi alteram partem. The petitioners in their writ petition further contended that the State Government or its authority in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Act is within the competence of ordering restriction/prohibition in plying of motor vehicles in the interest of public safety and convenience, nature of road or bridge in consonance of the provision of Section 116 of the Act. But it has never been intended by the legislature to put a restriction on plying of vehicle for days together affecting the business, income, livelihood of the person(s) concerned. By grouping the taxies into three groups and allowing plying on alternate day minus Government holidays and Saturday, the State respondents put a restriction on business, income and livelihood of the petitioners herein. On these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the notifications issued under the hand and seal of the Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Aizawl District, Aizawl and Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Transport Department.