2011 (8) TMI 1122 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether transporters (writ petitioners before the High Court) could only provide luggage space at the rear or the sides of a tourist vehicle as mandated by Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the Rules , and no luggage could be carried on the roof of the vehicle?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of carrying luggage on the roof of tourist vehicles as per Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
2. Whether Rule 128(9) imposes an unreasonable restriction on the transporters' right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Carrying Luggage on the Roof of Tourist Vehicles:
The primary issue revolves around whether transporters can legally carry luggage on the roof of tourist vehicles. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, mandates that luggage holds should be provided only at the rear or sides of the vehicle, explicitly excluding the roof. The High Court emphasized the safety and security of passengers, stating that loading luggage on the roof could lead to accidents due to uneven weight distribution.

The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 128(9) and Rule 93, concluding that Rule 128(9) is a special provision that overrides the general provisions of Rule 93. The Court noted that Rule 128(9) explicitly states that luggage holds "shall be provided at the rear or at the sides or both," using the mandatory term "shall," indicating a clear exclusion of the roof for luggage storage. The Court rejected the transporters' argument that Rule 93, which mentions ladders for loading luggage onto the roof, implies permission to carry luggage on the roof. The Court clarified that Rule 93's reference to ladders pertains to vehicles designed for heavy loads, not tourist vehicles.

2. Reasonableness of Restriction Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The transporters argued that the prohibition on carrying luggage on the roof of tourist vehicles is an unreasonable restriction on their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the restriction is reasonable, considering the safety of passengers. The Court emphasized that the rule's purpose is to ensure passenger safety by preventing accidents caused by unevenly loaded luggage on the roof. The Court found no merit in the argument that the restriction is arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that Rule 128(9) prohibits carrying luggage on the roof of tourist vehicles. The Court found the restriction reasonable and not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The appeals and writ petitions were dismissed, with the Court emphasizing the importance of adhering to safety regulations for the protection of passengers.