MAN SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 23-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
662 
MAN SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1985 
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Articles 14, 19(l)(g) & 21. 
Punjab Cycle Rickshaws (Regulation of licence) Act, 1976 
Sections'3 & 5. 
' 
Cycle Rickshaw - Licence - Grant of - Vehicle to be plied by 
owner himself - Whether - Valid - Constitutional. 
Statutory Interpretation. 
Validity of statute -
Determination of -
Duty of court -
Consider the degree of encroachment of citizen's right - Reason-
ableness can be determined on 
surrounding 
circumstances 
and 
contemporaneous legislation. 
' 
The Petitioners in the Writ Petition ply cycle rickshaws 
which they hire for the day from the owners of those vehicles. 
They carry on that activity for about eight months in the year 
and then return to the region to which they belong. For the hire 
of cycle rickshaws they pay the owners a certain sum for the day 
retaining the balance of the day's income to themselves. They are 
not in a position to purchase any cycle rickshaws. Unless they 
hire the vehicles they cannot carry on that activity. Oppressed 
by poverty this arrangement of cycle rickshaw hire has been 
resorted to with the owners who through. such exploitation obtain 
an unduly handsome return on the paltry investment made in the 
purchase of the cycle rickshaws. 
The Punjab Legislature, enacted the Punjab' Cycle Rickshaws 
(Re.gulation of Licence) Act, 1976 and s. 3 thereof provided that 
no owner of a cycle rickshaw shall be granted any licence in 
respect of his cycle rickshaw nor his licence shall be renewed by 
any municipal authority after the cODlllencement of the Act, unless 
the cycle-rickshaw is to be plied by such owner himself• Sec. 5 
MAN SINGH v. STATE 
663 
of the Act provided for penal punishment of any person found to 
A 
be in possession of a cycle-rickshaw without a lincence conform-
ing to the provisions of the Act. 
The constitutional validity of the Pilnjab Cycle Rickshaw 
(Regulation of Licence) Act, 1976 was challenged and this Court 
in H/e Azad Rickshaw Plil1ers Union v. State of l'lmjab, [1981) 1 
B 
s.c.a. 366, framed the following scheme: 
(a) Every rickshaw puller in Amritsar or other IDllnicipality 
who had been a licencee within one year of the coming into force 
of the Act shall be entitled to apply to the Municipal 
Connissioner for a certificate.or other document to the effect 
c 
that he had been a licencee for rickshaw pulling. 
(b) The Municipal Commissioner will verify the records and 
will grant the necessary certificate or other document within one 
11Klnth from the date of the application. 
( c) On receipt of the. Municipal certificate the rickshaw 
puller will apply to the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India 
(Small Loans) under the Guarantee scheme of 1971 for advance of a 
loan upto Rs. 900. 
(d) The loan 811Klunt shall be repaid by the rickshaw puller 
in 15 11K>nthly instalments. If there are delayed payments of 
instalments of loan, higher rate of interest will be recoverable. 
(e) When the rickshaw pullers during the agricultural season 
go to work in their fields, they shall nominate other rickshaw 
pullers without employment to ply the rickshawa during that 
D 
E 
season.The Municipal Commissioner, if satisfied that the nomins-
F 
tion made ia bons fide will issue licence to such pullers, or 
nominees of the liceii&ed rickshaw pullers, in the agricultural 
sea.son. 
The petitioners in their Writ Petitions contended that the 
1976 enactment resulted in making their conditions much worse, 
for whereas formerly they could at least ply the cycle rickshaw& 
on hiring them from the owners for a sum, they were unable to do 
so now, especially as they did not have the funds, nor possessed 
the arrangements for obtaining a loan for the purpose, and as 
they were not permanent residents of Amritsar, no one was 
prepared to stand surety for the S11K>Unt 
they sought to borrow 
froa the Banks. It was further contended that this scheme of this 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
Court in H/s Azad RicJrshair Puller's Onion v. State of Punjab had 
not been implemented by the Amritsar Municipal Corporation and 
consequently the provisions of the Punjab Act of 1976 had conti-
nued to operate with unabated severity to their detriment, and 
that it be declared ultra vires as an unconstitutional violation 
of the fond8J•ental right und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.