9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer entitled to exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer who can exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The State Government of Haryana, through a Notification dated March 16, 1973, empowered the General Manager to exercise these powers. The Court considered whether this appointment was valid or not. The appellant and petitioners contended that this appointment was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and contrary to the object and spirit of the Act. They argued that the General Manager, being responsible for the management of Haryana Roadways and in competition with private operators, could not impartially enforce the law. The Court emphasized that the powers of inspection, search, seizure, and detention under the Act were serious restrictions on the fundamental right of motor vehicle operators, and should be entrusted to a person expected to exercise them fairly. The Court found that the General Manager's dual role created a conflict of interest, potentially leading to biased enforcement and unfair treatment of private operators. The Court highlighted that the General Manager's appointment as an officer with police powers imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights of private motor vehicle operators. The Court reasoned that the General Manager's direct involvement in the operation of motor vehicles and his competing interests made him unfit to impartially enforce the law. The Court emphasized the importance of fair enforcement for the general public interest and noted that the appointment of the General Manager did not serve this purpose. The Court drew a parallel with a case from the High Court of Allahabad, where a similar appointment was held to be void. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal and writ petitions, holding the impugned Notification invalid and quashing it. The judgment concluded by stating that there would be no order as to costs. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the conflict of interest arising from the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer with powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court found this appointment to be violative of fundamental rights and not in the interest of the general public. The decision emphasized the need for impartial enforcement and fair treatment of private motor vehicle operators, leading to the invalidation of the appointment through the quashing of the Notification.
|
