HANS RAJ KEHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 04-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

916 
HANS RAJ KEHAR & ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
December 4, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, H. R. KHANNA AND 
P. K. GOSWAMI,, JJ.] 
8 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-S.41-Amended by S. 43A of Motor 
Vehicles 
(U.P. Amendment) Act, 1972- Scope of amendment. 
Constitution of India, 1950-If amended section violative of Art, 19(1)(£) 
and ( g). 
For the purpose of making it easier to s1:cure permits in respect of non-
nationalised routes and to simplify the procedure for this purpose s.47 of the 
Motor Vehicles Act was amended by inserting s.43-A of the Motor Vehi.cles 
(U.P. Amendment) Act, l 972. The section provides that, in the case of non-
nationalised routes, if the State Government is of the opinion that it is in the 
public interest to grant permits to all eligible applicants it may by notification 
in the gazette, issue a direction accordingly. A Notification was issued by the 
State Government. The appellant questioned the validity of the section as well 
as of the notification both of which were upheld by the High Court. 
On appeal it was contended (i) that the State Government issued the im-
pugned notificatio11 without applying its mind, as such a notification under 
s.43-A(2) could have been isrued only in public interest; (ii) that the deletion 
of s.47 ( 3) would have the effect of removing the limit on the number of per-
mits for mtra-regfon routes but that fact would not prevent tho imposition of 
a limit for the nµmber of permits for inter-region routes; and (3) that the 
impugned notification is violative of the rights of the appellants under Art. 
19(1) (f) and· (g)' of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : There is no infirmitir in the impugned notification. Sub-section 2 
of s. 43A gives power to the S1ate Government to issue directions in respect 
of non-nationalised routes and areas by means of notification in case the Gov~ 
1,rnment is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant perinits to all 
eligible applicants. The impugned notification recites that the State Govern-
ment is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to grant permits for non-
nationalised routes and areas to all eligible applicants. The notification 
th115 
gives all the particulars which are required by the statute. The notification 
removed the bar created by the limit on the number of permits for buses which 
could be issued and facilitates tb.e issue of such permits to fresh applicants if 
they satisfy the requirement of eligibility. Any measure which results 
in 
larger number of buses operating on various routes would necessarily eliminate 
or in any case minimise long hours of waiting at the bus stands. [920 G; 
~121 A-BJ 
( 2) There is no valid basis for the inference that if there is no limit on the 
number of permit!, for intra-region routes, limit on the number of permits for 
inter-region routes would have to be imposed. The object of the impugned 
notification is to liberalise the issue of permits and it is difficult to see how 
such a liberal measure can have the effect of introducing strictness or stringency 
in the matter of grant of permits for il).ter-region routes. (921 El 
(3) There is no valid basis for holding that the impugned provisions were 
violative of Art. :t9. There rs nothing in the notification· which prevents the 
i1ppellants from ac:quiring, holding and disposing of their property or prevents 
them from practising any profession or from carrying on any occupation. trade 
or busmess. The fact that some others have also been enabled to obtain per-
mit for running buses cannot •constitute a violation of the appellants' right 
under the above two clauses of Art. 19 of the Constitution. (922 B; 921 GJ 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
I. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HANS RAJ v. U.P. STATE (Khanna, /.) 
917 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2072 of 1972. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 17 /3rd August, 
1972 of the Allahabad High Court in C.W. Petn. No. 2438 of 1972. 
S. K. Dhaon and S. M. Markandeya, for the appellants. 
D. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was. delivered by 
KHANNA, J.-The short question which arises in this appeal filed 
on certificate: against the judgment of Allahabad High Court is the 
validity of section 43A, inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by 
U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972, and the notification dated March 30, 1972 
issued under: that section. 
The High Court upheld t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.