1955 (9) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947.
2. Infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Effect of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 on the impugned Act.
4. Application of Article 31(2) regarding deprivation of property.
5. Effect of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 on the impugned Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947:
The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947. The Act introduced significant amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, granting extensive powers to the Provincial Government, including fixing fares, canceling permits, and engaging in road transport services. The petitioners argued that these amendments were unconstitutional post the enactment of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950.

2. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g):
The petitioners contended that the amendments infringed upon their fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g). The Court noted that the amendments, which allowed the government to exclude private operators and create a state monopoly, prima facie violated this right. The Court referenced its decision in Shagir Ahmad v. The State of U.P., which held that total prohibition on the right to carry on business could not be justified under Article 19(6).

3. Effect of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951:
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, amended Article 19(6) to permit the creation of state monopolies. The respondents argued that this amendment, although not retrospective, made the impugned Act constitutional post-June 18, 1951. The Court agreed, stating that the amendment removed the inconsistency with Article 19(1)(g), thereby reviving the validity of the impugned Act. The Court held that the Act, which had become void due to inconsistency with the original Article 19(6), was revived and became enforceable against citizens after the amendment.

4. Application of Article 31(2) Regarding Deprivation of Property:
The petitioners also argued that the amendments deprived them of their property, specifically their right to ply motor vehicles for gain, which they claimed was an interest in a commercial undertaking. They cited Article 31(2) of the Constitution, which protects against deprivation of property without compensation. The Court acknowledged this argument but noted the impact of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955.

5. Effect of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955:
The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, amended Article 31(2) to clarify that laws depriving a person of property without transferring ownership or possession to the state do not constitute compulsory acquisition or requisitioning. The Court concluded that the impugned Act, which did not transfer ownership or possession, was not inconsistent with the amended Article 31(2). Consequently, the petitioners' challenge based on Article 31(2) was untenable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, was valid and enforceable post the amendments to Articles 19(6) and 31(2) by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, and the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, respectively. The Court made no order as to costs.