PRITAM BUS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed to challenge the vires of the amendment made by the Punjab Government in the punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, by notification No. 3971/t, dated the 28th june 1954.

(2.) PRITAM Bus Service Limited of Jullundur City is a holder of 12 stage carriage permits and owns 14 passenger transport vehicles. It is engaged in transporting passengers on various routes radiating from Julhmdur. By this amendment Sub-rule (c) has been added to Rule 4. 20. This sub-rule reads:--

(3.) THE Motor Vehicles Act is a Central Act. Section G8 of the Act empowers a State government to make rules for the purposes of Ch. IV of the Act. This Chapter beginning from Section 42 and ending with Section 68 lays down various provisions to control transport vehicles plying on various routes. Section 68 so far as it is relevant for the present purposes reads as follows:--"68 (1 ). A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of (his Chapter. (2 ). Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules under this section may be made with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:- (f) the balges and uniform to be worn by drivers and conductors ot stage carriages and contract carriages; it is therefore clear that a State Government can make rules under the Central Act regarding uniforms to be worn by drivers and conductors. Under Section 48 (d) a Regional Transport authority can attach to a stage carriage permit any prescribed condition after consideration ot matters set forth in Section 47 and these matters include consideration of the interest of the public generally. Rule 4, 20 (c) is obviously a prescribed condition and therefore if the rale is valid then its inclusion in the stage cairiago permits must be held to be valid and in accordance with law. This inclusion may cany with it the possibility of punishment for contravention of the rule as laid down under Section 112 of the Act, but this is only a corollary to the making ofavalid rule and if the rule is valid then its infringement must ho dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act.