2004 (4) TMI 587 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provisions of the impugned notification dated 31st December, 1999, except paragraph 3(b), are held valid and intra vires?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notification dated 31st December 1999 issued by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
2. Ultra vires nature of the notification under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Imposition of conditions on private bus operators to subsidize Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) losses.
4. Validity of the condition requiring private operators to honor DTC-issued concessional passes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notification:
The appellants challenged the notification dated 31st December 1999 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi, which revised fare structures and imposed additional charges on private bus operators. The notification also mandated that private operators honor all DTC-issued passes. The High Court upheld the notification, leading to the present appeal.

2. Ultra Vires Nature of the Notification:
The appellants contended that the notification was ultra vires the powers of the State Government under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. They argued that the notification imposed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court examined whether the State Government had the authority under Section 67 to impose such conditions.

3. Imposition of Conditions on Private Bus Operators:
The notification required private operators to pay Rs. 2500 per month for bus queue shelters and Rs. 5000 per month for using bus terminals to the DTC. The appellants argued that the DTC, being a statutory corporation, should not impose its financial burdens on private operators. The Court noted that the permit conditions had been revised in consultation with the DTC and were within the powers of the State Government and STA as per Section 72(2) of the Act.

4. Validity of the Condition Requiring Private Operators to Honor DTC-issued Concessional Passes:
The most contentious issue was the requirement for private operators to honor all DTC-issued concessional passes. The appellants argued that this condition was an attempt to subsidize DTC's losses and was not justified under the Act. The Court agreed, stating that the permit conditions only required honoring concessional passes authorized by the STA, not all DTC passes. The Court found Paragraph 3(b) of the notification, which mandated honoring all DTC passes, to be ultra vires and illegal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that while the notification's provisions regarding fare revisions and service charges were valid, the condition requiring private operators to honor all DTC passes was ultra vires and unenforceable. The Court directed the respondents to formulate an appropriate scheme within four months to provide relief to student pass holders. The judgment of the High Court was modified, and the appeal was allowed to the extent specified. There was no order as to costs.