MITHILESH GARG ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND. ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 22-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
-MITHILESH GARG ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND. ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 22,1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., M.H.KANIA 
AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Motor VehiCles Act, 198811939: 
Sections 71,72,80,88/47,57~rant of pennits-Liberalised proce-
C 
dure envisaged in the new Act-New pennits irrespective of number of 
persons already in the route-Rights of existing operators-Whether 
qffected--Different criteria provided for inter-region, intra-region and 
inter-State pennits-Whether violative of the Constitutional guarantee 
under Article 14--Factors to be taken into consideration by Regional 
Transport Authority before grant ofpennit. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)--Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-
Liberalised procedure for issue of pennits~rant of more permits in the 
same route-Different criteria for inter-region, intra-region and inter-
B State pennits-Whether violative of 
F 
G 
These Writ Petitions filed before this Court challenged the 
liberalisation for private sector operations in the Road Transport 
field, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners were the 
existing operators on different routes. 
On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the issue of 
more permits on the same route adversely affected their rights guaranteed 
under Ari:icles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It was further 
contended that though imposition of limit for grant of inter-State 
permits was permissible under Section 88(5) of the Act, it was not so 
in respect of intra-region permits and hence it is discriminatory; 
that in public interest the grant of intra-region permits should be 
limited. 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, this Court, 
H 
HELD: 1.1. Restricted licensing under the old Act led to the 
428 
.. 
-
MITHILESH GARG v. U.0.1. 
429 
concentration of business in the hands of few persons thereby giving 
A 
rise to a kind of monopoly, adversely affecting the public interest. 
The apprehensions of the petitioners, that too many operators o.n a 
route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of 
the profession, is without any basis. The transport business is bound 
to be ironed-out ultimately by the rational of demand and supply. 
Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge invest-
B 
ment. The intending operators are likely to be conscious of the eco-
nomics underlying the profession. Only such number of vehicles 
would finally remain in operation on a particular route as are eco-
nomically viable. In any case the transport system in a State is 
meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to 
grant permits liberally under the new Act is directed towards the 
C 
said goal. (438 A-C]. 
1.2 The petitioners are in t~e full enjoyment of their funda-
mental right guaranteed to th.em under Article 19(1)(g) of the Con-
stitution of India. There is no threat of any kind whatsoever from 
any authority to the enjoyment of their right to carry on the occu-
D 
pation of transport operators. There is no complaint of infringe-
ment of any of their statutory rights. More operators mean healthy 
competition and efficient transport system. Over-crowded buses, pas-
sengers standing in the aisle, persons clinging to the bus-doors and 
even sitting on the roof-top are some of the common sights in this 
country. More often one finds a bus which has noisy engine, old 
E 
·upholstery, uncomfortable seats and continuous emission of bla~k­
smoke from the exhaust pipe. It is, -therefore, necessary that· there 
should be plenty of operators on every routf.! to provide ample choice 
to the commuter-public to board the vehicle of their choice and 
patronise the operator who is providing the best service. Even oth-
erwise the liberal policy is likely to help in the elimination of cor-
F 
ruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits. [437 E-
. H; 438-A]. 
Hans Raj Kehar & Ors. v. The State of U.P. and Ors., [1975]2 
SCR 916, followed. 
Jasbhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar & Ors., [1976]3 SCR 58; Saghir 
Ahmad v. The State of U.P. and Ors., [1955] 1 SCR 707, relied on. 
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [1983] 
2 sec 195, distinguished. 
2. It is only the State which can impose reasonable restric-
G 
H 
~30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
tlons within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. 
Section 47(3) and 57 of the old Act were some of the restrictions 
which were imposed by 

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