KARTAR GOODS CARRIERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of Rule 6.90 of the J&K Motor Vehicles Rules, 1972, has been challenged by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the same and issuance of the directions to the respondents to issue public carrier route permits for 7 trucks of the petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid rule is vocative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India as it infringes the fundamental right of equality and imposes unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioner -company to carryon its transport business in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(2.) THE petitioner -company has established its offices in the Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1957 and is also registered with the Director General of Transport, J&K vide Registration No. 18 -AC. The inter -State operation of public carriers is stated to have been provided on the basis of the reciprocal agreement entered into between the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, according to which public carrier trucks which are registered outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir are required to get their Route -permits to be counter -signed by respondent No. 2 after the payment of the prescribed fee. However, such [Sic] directions which had been registered outside the State,even after being their permits countersigned, cannot load and unload goods within the State. It is alleged that according to clause (3) of the reciprocal agreement, a public carrier operating under the said agreement, is free co operate without restriction of routes in his home State whereas while operating in any area in other State, it cannot pick up or set down goods between any two points wholly within the jurisdiction of the reciprocating States. For the better management of their business and to overcome the difficulties faced by them, the petitioner -company purchased a fleet of 7 trucks and applied to the respondents for its registration and also for the issuance of public carrier route -permits against each of the trucks so that the petitioner -companys trucks could carry on their trade and business within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The prayer was refused on the plea that no such permit could be issued under rule 6.90 of the aforesaid rules. It is submitted that rule 6.90 is completely repugnant to the provisions of Article 35 -A of the Constitution which provides for special rights and privileges to permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

(3.) IN their reply affidavit the respondents have submitted that the aforesaid rule is legally valid and does not violate any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The rule provides the facility only to those companies or societies the members whereof are permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The rule is claimed to envisage a clear purport and object of economic upliftrnent of the permanent residents of the State and for encouragement of local transport trade. It is admitted that the permits were issued under Free Zone agreement entered into by the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Harayana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi which are countersigned -for operators in the Jammu and Kashmir State under the provisions of the aforesaid reciprocal agreement. The classification contained in the impugned rule is stated to be having a clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved.