Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.2 The notification dated 26-7-1994 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 115 of the Act in respect of Udupi, is concerned in Writ Appeal No. 4273 of 1995, would indicate the position thus insofar as the restricted area of Udupi Bus Stand is concerned: There was a report of the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The RTO of Udupi had also submitted a report after survey of Udupi Bus Stand and neighbourhood roads. There was no space for parking the vehicles in the bus stand concerned and there was increased vehicular traffic in the neighbourhood roads. It had therefore become impossible to control the said traffic resulting in more and more accidents. Hence the decision to restrict entry of vehicles under the new permits into the said Udupi Bus Stand and the neighbourhood roads.

7.3 Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Om Gautam v District Magistrate, Mathura, learned Counsel for the appellants/writ petitioner urged that in the notifications concerned, bus stands are also fixed by the District Magistrate whereas in facts the said power vested in RTA. Bus stands are not fixed in the said notifications. The object sought to be achieved in issuing these notifications is to restrict entry of vehicles under the new permits into Hampanakatta area in Mangalore city and into Udupi Bus Stand and the neighbourhood roads in Udupi town. To achieve this object, it was also necessary for the District Magistrate to mention in the notifications as to what point away from Hampanakatta area/Udupi Bus Stand the said new buses had to stop in order to comply with the said restrictions imposed. It is these particulars that are specifically mentioned in the notifications.

10.3 Reference to Section 71(3)(a) in the present context is inappropriate. Section 71 occurs in Chapter V of the Act relating to control of Transport Vehicles. The said chapter does not deal with the vehicles other than the transport vehicles i.e., vehicles for carrying either passengers or goods. The said chapter relates to the necessity of obtaining permits for plying all such vehicles, considerations relevant for granting or refusing permits, procedure for applying for grant of permits, etc. It is in course of these provisions in the said Chapter V that Section 71(3)(a) provides for the Central Government to direct the State Government to limit the number of stage carriages in a particular city of the population not less than 5 lakhs, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions, etc. Any grant of permit is to be done subject to these restrictions under Section 71. Here we are concerned with a particular place in Mangalore City, namely Hampanakatta area, and a particular area in Udupi town, namely the Bus Stand area and neighbouring roads, wherein the traffic survey reports have indicated that the conditions will go chaotic unless remedial measures are taken. As noticed earlier as to the kind of vehicular traffic therein, capacity of the existing traffic system there and the tremendous inconvenience that the members of public are put to in that area, it is absolutely clear that the situation cannot be allowed to further deteriorate. On the admission of the learned Counsel Sri Putige Ramesh himself, Section 71(3)(a) cannot be resorted to even if the Central Government and the State Government want to do, because the population is less than 5 lakhs. Limit under Section 71(3)(a) is also inappropriate for the reason that, that is a limit that has to be taken note of by the RTA or STA in the matter of granting future permits and to limit granting of permits to the number that is determined under Section 71(3)(a). Limiting of the said number under Section 71(3)(a) would only be in respect of stage carriages and not motor vehicles of any other description. Supposing, in the Hampanakatta area of Mangalore city, driving of not merely the stage carriages but also the other vehicles are required to be prohibited or restricted, then in that case, Section 71(3)(a) has obviously no application even if the Central Government desires to do something in the matter. Going further, supposing, in a place outside any city limit without reference to its population, a bridge is so weak that it is necessary to prohibit driving of heavy vehicles thereon. Even then, Section 71(3)(a) has obviously no application. The question that then arises is as to whether the authorities are so helpless as not to be able to prevent either the chaotic condition in an area like Hampanakatta or to prevent collapse of the bridge that is found so weak. Section 115 of the Act, however, does not render the authorities so helpless. It is of significance that while Section 71(3)(a) as stated earlier occurs in Chapter V relating to control of transport vehicles. Section 115 occurs in Chapter VIII dealing with control of traffic. Thus, to deal with the situation that has arisen in Hampanakatta area in Mangalore city or Udupi Bus Stand and nearby area of Udupi, it is the control of traffic that is called for. Such a control of traffic could be in respect of all vehicles or in respect of only some of the vehicles; it could be in respect of all classes of vehicles or in respect of only some class or classes of vehicles; it could be in respect of only some of the vehicles in a particular class and not in respect of remaining of the vehicles of that particular class. Any decision in this regard shall have to be taken with due regard to public safety or convenience or the nature of road or the nature of bridge in respect of an area where the traffic is required to be controlled, and, this has to be done by the District Magistrate under Section 115 of the Act read with Rule 221-A(5) of the Rules. Reference to Section 71(3)(a) is, therefore, inappropriate and it is only Section 115 of the Act which governs such a situation.

As discussed earlier, a notification under Section 115 prohibits/restricts movement of stage carriages in a small specified area. It could be Hampanakatta in Mangalore; it could be Bus Stand and neighbouring areas in Udupi; it could be a weak bridge on a road at another place. Resorting to Section 115 of the Act is thus a small measure towards control of traffic under Chapter VIII of the Act. The said section in no way comes in the way of stage carriage operators like the appellants carrying on the profession of transport undertaking and obtaining necessary permits under Chapter V of the Act. Nothing prevents them from carrying on their profession and to run their stage carriages in the entire city of Mangalore except Hampanakatta area. Nothing prevents them from plying their stage carriages in any part of Udupi taluk or Udupi town excepting a small area in Udupi Bus Stand and the neighbouring roads. They could definitely ply their stage carriages in all those areas other than the two restricted areas by obtaining necessary permits under Chapter V of the Act. It is only in respect of these small areas that RTA has to take due note of the notification under Section 115 of the Act and to tell the operators that, though not from the RTA's point of view, at least from the point of view of avoiding entry into the prohibited areas, that a permit cannot be granted to ply stage carriages in such prohibited areas. RTA therefore would be certainly within its right in taking due note of the notification issued under Section 115 of the Act. Imposition of necessary restrictions under Section 115 of the Act therefore can hardly be called 'unreasonable' not falling within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, particularly when the said restrictions can be imposed only if a reasonable authority specifies that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge. Restrictions to be so imposed under Section 115 are certainly reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, they being in the interest of the general public, and that therefore, the said restrictions do not impinge the fundamental right of the appellants to practice their profession of running stage carriages guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.