HARI OM GAUTAM versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 27-03-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HAR! OM GAUTAM 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA & ANR. 
MARCH 27, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68(2)(r), 76 and 91 read with }.... 
Rule 93 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, scope of-Whether the 
District Magistrate has the power to appoint any area as a bus stand/ . .J 
C halting places and whether the Town Area Committee has the power to 
levy fees, for the use of the area so fixed as Bus stand, from the bus 
operators. 
Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contain provisions..).._ 
D relating to "control of transport vehicles". Section 68 confers the 
power on the State Government to make rules for the purpose of the 
said chapter. Clause (r) of sub-section (2) ofsection 68 of the Act specifi-
cally confers on the State Government without prejudice to the gene-
rally of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 68 of the 
Act the power to frame rules regarding "prohibiting the picking up or 
E setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified 'f.. 
places or in specifted areas or at places other than duly notified stands 
or baiting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage to stop and 
remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required by a -
passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified 
halting place." Section 76 empowers the State Government or any 
. 
F 
authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government to -~ 
determine parking places and halting stations. Clause (e) of suh-sEdion · 
(2) of section 91 of the Act confers the power on the State Government :i.,,~ 
specifically to make rules regarding the maintenance and management 
of parking places and stands and the fees, if any, which may be charged 
for their use. Role 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles 8.ules, 1940 
G similarly authorises the District Magistrate to specify places within the 
limits of any municipality, notified area, town area or cantonment or 
within such other limits as he may define where alone public service 
~ 
vehicles or any specified class or classes of public service vehicles and/or " 
goods vehicles may stand indefinitely or for such period as may be ~ 
specified or public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is 
H necessary for the taking up and setting down of passengers. 
714 
·~ 
\ 
' 
HARi OM GAUTAM v. D.M. MATHURA 
715 
The District Magistrate, Mathura by his order dated 22.5.1986 A 
declared and determined plot Nos. 701 and 702 in the Town Area, 
Baldev (Mathura) as a bus stand/halting place of Baldev, where the 
stage carriages were directed to stand for the purpose of allowing the 
passengers of Baldev to get into and to get down from the stage car· 
riages. Accordingly, the Town Area Committee gave a contract to a 
private contractor to collect the necessary fees payable by the bus B 
operators for making use of the area in question which was within its 
jurisdiction for stopping their buses in accordance with the order pas· 
-x 
sed by the District Magistrate. The appellant, a person providing trans· 
port service in the District of Mathura, challenged the said order dated 
May 22, 1986 and the order of the Town Area Committee the levy 
I 
fees by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 501 of 1986 before the High C 
Court of Allah,.bad. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court 
on 8.9.1986. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: Rule 93 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Roles, 1940 only autho· D 
rises the District Magistrate to exercise the powers under Section 76 of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is confined to the question of 
determination of parking places and halting places which are not the 
same as bus stands which can only be notified by the Regional Trans• 
port Authority under section 68(2)(r) of the Act. [721B] 
In the instant case no order has been passed by the Regional 
Transport Authority, Mathura to determine the area in question as a 
bus stand and the District Megistrate cannot be equated with the 
· Regional Transport Authority constituted under the Act. Therefore, 
the order dated 22.5.1986 passed by the District Magistrate and also the 
E 
_ letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer of Town Area F 
Committee, Baldev to the President of the Union requiring the bus 
opera!ors to stop their buses at the bus stand and to start from there 
and to permit the passengers to get into and to ge

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