MAHESH TRAVELS & TOURS & ANR. ETC. versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 01-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK, G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
MAHESH TRAVELS & TOURS & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. 
MAY 1, 1989 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ. AND G.L. OZA, J.] 
Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 67-Police authorities-Right 
.. of-To prepare and enforce roster system for operating launch services. 
A 
B 
Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, 1962: Rules 4, 6, 7 and 
19-Regu/qtion of the use of landing place by launches-Framing of C 
roster and its imposition-Only method of regulation. 
The appellants were operating launch services for joy rides, film 
shooting, etc. from Appollo Pier or Gateway of India to Elephanta 
Island in Bombay. Respondent 7 was a cooperative association of 
launch owners also engaged in the same activities. The members he-
D 
longing to the associations were operating launch services turn by turn 
on voluntary roster system to avoid unhealthy competition. 
When efforts were made by the police and the Port Trust 
Authorities to resolve the difference in the operation of launch services 
between the association and the appellants failed, a roster system was 
E 
chalked out on the direction of the Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port 
Trust which was sought to be enforced by the police. When some emp-
loyees working in the launches were arrested for failure to act according 
to the roster system, the appellants tiled writ petitions claiming that the 
police and the Port Trust Authorities had no authority to compel them 
to follow the roster system. 
F 
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the 
Bombay Port Trust Rules conferred powers upon the Deputy Conser-
vator to give directions for berthing and for mooring and unmooring 
the vessels in the Port, and that apart the police and the Port Trust 
Authority had adequate powers under the Port of Bombay Passenger G 
Boat Rules, 1962 and section 67 of the Bombay Police Act to regulate 
the manner in which the launches carried Passengers. 
In the appeals to this Court, ·it was contended on behalf of the 
appellants that: (1) the Deputy Conservator of Bombay Port Trust, 
respondent No. 3 was not empowered in law to devise an order of the 
H 
825 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
A imposition of a roster, and that this action was beyond the powers 
conferred by the Indian Ports Act 1908, the Bombay Port Rules and the 
Port of Bombay Passengers Rules 1962. (2) Respondent jlio. 3 had 
purported to act under Rules 4 and 19 of the Bombay Port Rules, Rule 4 
of the Port of Bombay Passenger Boat Rules, and section 7 of the 
Bombay Police Act In having the roster system enforced by the Ins-
~ 
B pector of Police. (3) The roster has tendency to prohibit trade and the 
)..._ 
power to regulate Is being misused as a power to prohibit. (4) Thet. 
Imposition of the roster is too severe a measure to deal with the simple 
problem of overcrowding and chaos and touting for passengers, (5) The 
provocation for devising and imposing a roster was the complaint made 
by the appellant's trade rivals. and (6) The roster has been prepared 
C and is being enforced without recourse to any statutory provision enabl-
ing respondent No. 3 to devise it and impose it. 
Ji( 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The roster system provides for the regulation of 
D traffic, so that each launch obtains an opportunity of access to the 
landing place. This is not a distribution of business, but a distribution of 
the time for which the landing place can be used, and therefore, a 
regulation of the use of the landing place. The roster is intended to give 
effect to Rule 4 of the Port of Bombay Passenger Boats Rules, 1962. 
There is no reason why recourse to a roster system sbould be considered 
E as unreasonable. [830C. Fl 
F 
G 
H 
2. The dominant purpose of the regulation of the use of the land-
ing place by the launches is to prevent congestion and a possible breach 
of peace. The real purpose that the roster is intended to serve, is to 
ensure the even flow oftr'!ffic at landing,places. [830H; 831A] 
Smt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India & Anr., [1979] 2 SCC 
491; Brownells Limited v. The Ironmongers' Wages Board-Brownells 
Limited v. The Drapers' Wages Board, 11950] 81 C.L.R. 108 and 
Hanson v. Radcliffe Urban District Council, [1922] 2 Ch. 490 
inapplicable. 
3. All the launches owners have equitable access to the landing 
place and if the other conditions for plying the launches, such as holding 
of a proper licence, are satisfied, there is no reason why the launches, 
turn by turn, can
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.