S. K. BHATIA & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 12-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

595 
S. ~. BHATIA & OTHERS 
•• 
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
August 12, 1983 
(0. A. DESAI AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-condition In a permit as to aKe of mini buses-
whether infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. 
U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) A.ct. 1976' section 4-scope of. 
A condition that the motor vehicle covered by the permit shall not be 
more than four years old, counted from the date of registration to any ·time 
during the validity of the permit is attached to every permit for plying a mini 
bus. The petitioners contended (i) that this condition amounted to an infringe-
ment of Article 14 of the Constitution in that.no such condition was attached "'· 
in the case of omnibuses and (ii) that the authority competent to impose the 
condition was the authority constituted under the U. P.· Act and not the 
Regional Transport Authority. 
Disinissing the petitions. 
HELD : It is not correct to say that a condition similar to the ·one 
attached to permits issued in the case of mini buses was not attached to the 
permits issued in the case of omnibuses. In their case too, there is a condition 
that the vehicle should be replaced on the expiry of five years from the date of 
registration. Secondly, omnibuses and mini buses constitute different classes 
and are not comparable. [598 DJ 
The source of power for imposing condition 18 is section 51(2) (x) of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the Motor Vehicles Act under which the authority empowered to impose the 
F 
condition is the Regional Transport Authority. Section 4 of the U. P. Motor 
Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 has nothing whatever to do with the 
imposition of conditions on mini buses plying as contract carriages. Tbat Act 
deals with authorisation of and use of private mini buses as stage carriages 
withi~ sp~cified I~mits covered by an approved scheme. 
[598-<'.iJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 1124, 4908, 9069· 
G 
70, 18-21, 4817, 9445•48 of 1981, 1336; 2117·20, 6808 and 7219 of 
· 1982, 2928of1980, 1698/80 and 663 of 1981. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
S. Markandey, Mrs. C. Markandey, U.S. Prasad, R.K. Jain, 
R.B. Mehrotra, Ravi Prakash Gupta and 
K.K. 
Gupta for. the. 
Petitioners. 
· 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· [i983j 3 s.c.R.. 
Kapi/ Sibal and Mrs. 
Shobha Dixit for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In these. writ petitions, the vires of 
condition No. 18 attached to the permits issued by the respective 
Regional Transport Authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh :o the 
petitioners for plying contract carriages known as 'mini' buses is in 
question. 'Mini bus' is defined by sec. 2 (d) of the U.P. Motor 
Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 as meaning "an omnibus 
which is constructed or adapted to carry riot more than 35 persons 
excluding the driver". Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 
enables the Regional Transport Authority 
granting a contract 
carriage permit to attach in the permit any one or more of the 
conditions enumerated in that provision. Item (x} of Section 51 (2} 
reads."any other condition which· may be prescribed". .Condition 
No. 18 is a condition which is prescribed and attached in every permit · 
for plying a miui bus. The condition in its original form stood thus : 
"The motor vehicle covered by the permit shall not be more than 
four years old counted from the date of registration to any .time 
during the validity of the permit." The period of four years originally 
stipulated was increased to "seveu" on September -28, 1978 and 
again raised to "nine" on December 21, 1981. · The vires of the 
; 
• 
j 
' 
condition was questioned earlier by some owners of mini buses on 
the ground that it was ultra vires the power ·under sec. 51 (2) of the 
Motor Vehicles Act. But, in Subhash Chandra And Ors v.· State 
of U.P. and Ors,(1) this Court held that the condition was within the 
limits of the power conferred by sec. 51 (.2) tracing its source to Item 
(X) of sec. 51 (2). The Court observed : 
Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is· 
. geared to public safety, not private profit and casts a 
solemn duty not to be deterred by any pressure except the 
pressure of social justice to Indian lives moving in buses, 
walking on reads or even standing on margins ............. .. 
. .................................................. ........... ........... .. . 
" 
.....................................

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