ALL DELHI CYCLE RICKSHAW OPERATORS UNION ETC. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 06-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ALL DELHI CYCLE RICKSHAW OPERATORS UNION ETC. 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. ETC. 
JANUARY 6, !987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, 
JJ.] 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, section 481(J)(L)(5), 
scope of-Power to make bye law regulating the keeping or plying for 
hire a cycle rickshaw in De/hi-Whether, the Bye-law 3(1) of the Cycle 
Rickshaw Bye-laws, 1960 restricting the number of licence to only one 
and the grant only to the owner of a cycle rickshaw either to keep or to 
ply for hire, is within the scope of the power conferred on the autho-
rity-Whether the said bye-law is opposed to Article 19(J)(g) of the 
Constitution. 
Section 481(1) of the Delhi Mnnlcipal Corporation Act, 1957 em-
powers the Corporation to mBke additional bye-laws to the existing 
ones. Under the power so conferred the Corporation introduced Bye-
law No.J(i) in the Cycle -Rickshaw Bye-laws, 1960, under which only an 
owner of the cycle rickshaw can obtain a licence to keep a cycle rick-
shaw or to ply for hire and only one such licence would be ~ued to a 
person. By necessary implication it excludes persons who own a. number 
of cycle rickshaws from applying for licences and prohibits the hiring 
out of the cycle rickshaw by the owner in favour of a rickshaw puller 
against payment of consideration. 
The Writ Petitioners are owners of cycle rickshaws. Some of them 
own two or more cycle rickshaws which are hired out by them to rick-
shaw pullers under a contract under whicli the rickshaw pullers have to 
pay some amount to the owners of the cycle rickshaws at the end of the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
day out of their earnings during the day. Being aggrieved by the intro-
duction of Bye-law No.J(i), they have moved the Supreme Court under 
G 
Article Ji of the Constitution that the said Bye-law is opposed to Article 
19( I )(g) of the Constitntion and aisO outside the scope of section 
481(1)L(5) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court, 
905 
H, 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 
HELD: l. l On a consideration of the language of clause (5) in 
A section 481(!) L of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, it is 
clear that Bye·law 3(1) falls within the scope of the power conferred on 
the Corporation to frame bye-laws for the issue of licences in respect of 
cycle-rickshaws which are kept or used for plying in the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation area. While framing bye-laws under the above statutory 
B 
provision it is pennlssible for the Corporation to restrict the is.'1Je of 
licences only to the owners of the rickshaws who themselves act as 
rickshaw pullers. This is apparently done to prevent exploitation of the 
rickshaw pullers by the owners of the cycle rickshaws. A licensing 
authority may impose ·any condition while is.'1Jing a licence which is in 
the interest of the general public unless it is either expressly or by 
necessary implication prohibited from imposing such a condition by the 
C 
law which confers the power of licensing. The restriction imposed by 
the Corporation in the present case is in the interest of the general 
public. [910C-E] 
!.2 The Bye-law No.3(1) cannot therefore be said to be either 
D outside the scope of section 481 of the Corporation Act or opposed to the 
provisions ofthe Constitution. [911D] 
Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union ( Regd) Ch. Town Hall, Amritsar 
) 
& Ors. etc. v. State of Punjba & Ors., [!981] l SCR 366 and Nanhu & 
--'
Ors. etc. v. Delhi Administration & Ors., [1981] I SCR 373, referred 
E to. 
Man Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [!985] 4 SCC 146, 
followed. 
(The Court approved the two schemes of financial assistance, put 
F 
forward, at its instance, by the Bank of Baroda and the State Bank of 
India and the wlllingness of the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India 
(Small L(lllllS) to guarantee the repayment of the loans advanced to the 
rickshaw pullers and directed, accordingly, the several branches of the 
Punjab National Bank, the Bank of Baroda and the State Bank of India 
operatlng in Delhi to give financial assistance to rickshaw pullers who 
G 
wish to own cycle rickshaws and ply them under licences issued by the 
Corporation snbject to their producing the necessary eligibility certifi· 
cate issued by the Corporation and satisfying the other terms of the 
Schemes, namely (i) the scheme for financial to cycle rickshaw pullers; 
and (ii) self employment programme fm· urban poor (SEPUP). The 
court also d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.