1960 (3) TMI 46 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deprivation of the right to carry on business and discriminatory treatment in the grant of permits.
2. Interpretation of provisions under Chapters IV and IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
3. Legality of the State applying for permits under Chapter IV.
4. Alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deprivation of the right to carry on business and discriminatory treatment in the grant of permits:
The petitioner, a co-operative society, claimed that it had been deprived of its right to carry on its business of plying motor buses and subjected to discriminatory treatment in the matter of the grant of permits. The petitioner argued that its fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution had been infringed.

2. Interpretation of provisions under Chapters IV and IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The case revolved around the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, particularly Chapters IV and IVA. Chapter IV includes sections 42 to 68, while Chapter IVA, introduced by the amending Act of 1956, includes sections 68A to 68I. The court examined the provisions of these chapters to determine the legality of the State's actions.

3. Legality of the State applying for permits under Chapter IV:
The petitioner contended that the State of Bombay had no right to apply for permits under Chapter IV of the Act and that the order granting permits to the State was illegal, affecting its fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g). The court analyzed whether the State could apply for permits under Chapter IV, given the special provisions in Chapter IVA. It was found that the government could apply for permits under Chapter IV, as the amended section 42(3)(a) required the government to obtain permits for commercial purposes. The court held that the Act provided two independent sets of provisions for the government to run buses: one under Chapter IV and the other under Chapter IVA. The principle from Nazir Ahmad's case did not apply here as the government had multiple powers under the Act.

4. Alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioner argued that the State's application for permits under Chapter IV violated its fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g). The court found that the government was entitled to apply for permits under Chapter IV and that this did not infringe on the petitioner's rights. Regarding Article 14, the petitioner claimed that it was entitled to preference over the government as a co-operative society under the proviso to section 47(1). The court held that the decision of respondent No. 1, based on promises made by the State of Bombay, did not offend Article 14 or any other fundamental right of the petitioner. The court also dismissed the argument that competition with the State violated Article 14, citing Article 19(6), which allows the State to carry on business in competition with private citizens.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the State of Bombay was legally entitled to apply for permits under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner's claims of violations of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution were found to be unfounded. The petition was dismissed with costs.