9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under Rule 131(2)(gg) and (i) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. 2. Allegation of mala fides in the State Government's action. 3. Contravention of Section 44 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. 4. Satisfaction of the State Government as a condition precedent for the order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order under Rule 131(2)(gg) and (i): The appellants contended that the impugned order exceeded the powers granted under Rule 131(2)(gg) and (i) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. Rule 131(2)(gg) allows the State Government to prohibit or restrict the carriage of persons or goods by any vehicle or class of vehicles. The Court held that the vehicles' control envisaged in clause (gg) cannot be divorced from the persons plying the vehicles. The prohibition or restriction must be addressed to the persons operating the vehicles. The Court also addressed the conflict between Section 43 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, and Section 68-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It concluded that Section 43 of the Defence of India Act must prevail due to its later enactment and the emergency context it addresses. Therefore, the order was within the State Government's powers under Rule 131(2)(gg) and (i). 2. Allegation of Mala Fides: The appellants argued that the order was passed to circumvent the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which would necessitate compensation. The Court examined the affidavit filed by the State Government and found that the decision was based on reports of subversive activities and the need for national security. The impugned order was a result of a thorough consideration over four years, especially after the Chinese invasion in 1962. The Court concluded that the order was not mala fide and was not a device to avoid compensation. 3. Contravention of Section 44 of the Defence of India Act: Section 44 mandates that any authority acting under the Act should interfere with ordinary life and property enjoyment as little as possible. The appellants failed to show that anything less than the impugned order would meet the situation's needs. The Court noted that the State Government had explored various means to address the issue before deciding on the order. Therefore, the order did not contravene Section 44. 4. Satisfaction of the State Government: The appellants questioned whether the State Government was satisfied that the order was necessary for securing the defence of India and other purposes. The Court noted that the affidavits filed in the High Court were unclear, but an additional affidavit filed in the Supreme Court clarified that the Chief Minister had considered all aspects and decided on the order. The necessary satisfaction of the State Government was established before issuing the order. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the Court upheld the validity of the State Government's order under Rule 131(2)(gg) and (i) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The allegations of mala fides and contravention of Section 44 of the Defence of India Act were rejected, and the necessary satisfaction of the State Government was confirmed.
|
