LexCAPTAIN SUBE SINGH AND ORS. versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CAPTAIN SUBE SJNGH AND ORS.
v.
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.
APRIL 30, 2004
[R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
A
B
Section 67-Stage carriage permits-Notification dated 31-12-1999
issued by Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi-Para 3(a)- C
Bus queue shelters and bus terminals charges payable by private operators
upwardly revised-Validity of-Held: Steep increase of charges does not make
the conditions of the permit illegal or ultra vires the power of State Transport
Authority-Hence, upward revisions of charges valid-Para 3(a) of Notification
dt. 31-12-1999 intra vires the Act.
D
Section 67-Stage carriage permits-Notification dated 31-12-1999
·issued by Lt. Governor of National Capital Territory of Delhi-Para 3(b)-
Concessional passes issued by DTC-Whether binding on private stage carriage
operators-Held: A power to enforce the binding nature of the concessional
passes issued by DTC on private stage carriage operators cannot be subsumed E
under the powers of the State Government-Hence, para 3(b) of the_ notification
dt. 31-12-1999 is clearly ultra vires the powers of the State Government under
S. 67(/)(d) r/w clause (i) and, therefore liable to be quashed and set aside-
However, since a sudden discontinuation of concessional passes would seriously
affect commuters, especially students, the State Transport Authority given time F
to make alternative arrangements and formulate an appropriate scheme
therefor.
Section 72(2)(xx)-Stage carriage permits-Conditions-Alteration of-
Permissibility of-Held: Conditions of permit could be altered by issuance of
notification under S. 67-However, the notification must. have been validly G
issued-But the Authority must act in accordance with the rules for variation
of the conditions attached to the permit-It is not permissible for the State
Government to purport to alter these conditions by issuing a notification
under S. 67(/)(d) rlwl clause (i).
929
H
930
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
Chapter VJ-Concessional passes-Considerations in favour of Delhi
B
Transport Undertaking (DTC)-Held: Apart from the concessions, which are
expressly made available in favour of State Transport Under,tak,ing, there are
no special considerations in favour of DTC.
Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1973:
Rules 75 and 76-Stage carriages-Halting of-Jn public places -
Permissib1/ity ·a/-Held: A stage carriage ope~ator is required to stop the bus
only at such places as directed by the conditions of the permit_;_Buses of the
private operators are required to stop their buses only at bus shelters and
C terminals of DTC.
{
Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 19( 1 )(g) and 38-"Social obligations "--Concessional passes-'-
lssued by DTC-Honouring of-By private transport operators-Held: Private
D transport operators not required to honour t~ concessional passes issued by
DTC in discharge of its so-called "social obligations".
The appellants were private transport operators and were granted
stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the
Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. Respondent No. 1 issued a notification
E dated 31-12-1999 under Section 67 of the Act whereby the charges for bus
queue shelters and bus terminals payable by the appellants were upwardly
revised. The said notification further stipulated that the concessional passes
issued by respondent No. 4-Delhi Transport Corporation, would also be
binding on the appellants.
F
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notification, the appellants filed a
G
H
writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. Hence the
appeal.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Apart from the concessions, which are expressly made
available under Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in favour of
the State Transport Undertakings, there are no special considerations in.
favour of respondent No. 4-Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), which
must be treated as any other operator. [942-B-CI
CAPTAIN SUBE SINGH v. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI
931
Ishwar Singh Bagga v. State of Rajasthan, [19871 1 SCC 101, relied A
on.
1.2. The peculiar circumstances under which the running of stage
carriage permits within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, were
thrown open to private operators and the specific conditions imposed in B
the permits would have to be kept in mind for adjudging the legality of
the notification Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.