Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The discretion to be exercised by certain authorities which is in exercise of statutory powers may not be an exclusive jurisdiction in application and particularly, keeping its impact on society in mind. Such discretion has to be exercised with greater care and in conformity with laws in existence. Legislatively vested power may work as an exclusive jurisdiction, thus, giving it complete precedence over other laws. It may be desirable for the authorities to exercise such discretion or power appropriately. Wherever there is no exclusive jurisdiction and it can affect enforcement of laws then such authority, power or jurisdiction would have to be exercised in conformity with other laws and it must ensure that the Page 1563 permission or licence granted in furtherance of such power do not offend other specific laws and even for that matter, public policy, public interest and environment. Powers, if any, vested in the Municipal Corporation in relation to grant of permits or licences for mobile advertising vehicles parked in such areas where the Corporation does not enjoy strict exclusive jurisdiction has impact on and is bound to affect traffic laws, public interest and environment. For each of such fields, there are specific laws in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and constitutional protection available to the citizens of India under Article 21 of the Constitution of India having a claim to public interest and in any case, better environment. As back as in the year 1987, the Supreme Court expressed the need for evolving legal jurisprudence to keep pace with the changing socioeconomic norms and created an innovative interpretation so as to meet the object of human rights jurisprudence. In the case of M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Supreme Court has clearly stated the principle that in exercise of its constitutional powers and within the limitations of judicial activism, the court, if necessary, should interprete and evolve new laws so as to protect the basic rule of law and truly apply the spirit of Article 21 with the aid of Article 12 and the court held as under:

Learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation very fairly stated that they would take action in accordance with the Policy and discharge their public duty in accordance with law.

3. In these circumstances, we direct the State Government, particularly through the Joint Commissioner (Traffic) to ensure that these vehicles are not permitted to obstruct the flow of traffic and are not parked at objectionable places particularly pavements, carriageways and main roads.

4. Before any directions or orders are passed in relation to these mobile advertising vehicles, it will be appropriate to issue notice to the owners of these vehicles. Registry to issue notices to these vehicle owners through the State and Corporation without any delay, returnable on 28th April, 2008.

5. Seating capacity : 3 Load capacity(Kg): 5620

34. With the above particulars of registration of the vehicle, the applicants had taken out Insurance Policy for the vehicle. These documents clearly show that the vehicle was neither certified nor registered as an open mobile advertising vehicle. On the contrary, the vehicle was a pick up van to be used for carriage of goods which, in fact, is the correct meaning and use of a van. The certifying authority also certified the vehicle as a van pick up a vehicle to be used for carriage of goods, LCV Goods Display Vehicle and it is pertinent to note that in the registration form, besides it being called so and permit being issued as `Goods Carriage Permit' in terms of Rule 72(1)(v), it was also noticed in Column 10 that it has seating capacity of three and load capacity of 5620 kgs. The user of the goods was, "Carrying General Goods". In other words, neither the Corporation nor any authorities had examined the matter in its correct perspective and in accordance with law. It is a settled principle of law that written documents issued in normal course of business of the Government and its authorities should be taken to be correct. We are unable to believe the version of the applicants that these were the vehicles as shown in the photographs and record which were produced for inspection before the authorities concerned in the shape in which they exists as of today.

39. The open mobile advertising vehicle is nowhere stated as a specified vehicle which can validly be registered by the registering authority in terms of the said provision. That is the precise reason why the certificate of registration, fitness certificate and the forms issued in favour of the applicants did not describe the vehicle as open mobile advertising vehicle and restricted its user only for carriage of goods and for no other purpose. Either the petitioners have made misrepresentation before the authorities concerned or the authorities have exercised their power while shutting their eyes to the facts and with callousness.