LexS. SHAMSHUDDIN & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
'·
B.
(l
E
•
522
S. SHAMSB!JDDJN & ORS. :ETC
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
April 18; 1984 ·
[D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH'MrsRA, JJ.]
'Niotor VehfcJes Act, 1939 as 'amended by Mo'ior Vehicles (Amendtfient) ·
Act 56of1969 s;63(7}-lnterp retatio~ of. Quota of 50 all India to~r{st permits
· fixed by Central Gov~rnment by No(ijication No.S.0.22 dated D~cember 19; 1977-
·. Whether valid.
Pow~r !o.f{x quot~ and power to.grant all India pernzits-Whethe.r
~eparable. The expression In res pee t of such .itumber of tourist vehi'c.les as the •.
Ceiltra/.-GovertunetZi tii:iy, in. respect of that State~ sj;ecify in this behalf-Whether.
severable.
·
In order to
promote tourism, the Motor Vc.hicles Apt, 1939 was
amended by. the Mot.or Vehicles (Amendment) Att 56 of '1969. Suh·s."(7)
. which was introduced .in· s. 63
~Y thee.Amending Act pr.ovided that Ilo!with-
standing anything conta.ined in Sab·s·. (l} but s•Jbj~~ct to- aOy rules that may be
made 1:1nd'er this Act, any State_ Tra·nsport ,Aut\1.oritY may, for th~ purpose of '
promotin& touTiam, grant permits valid Jor _th<! -whole or any. part of India,.
in respect of sUch number of t,o-irist Vehicles ·as ~he Central _Government inay, '
in -resPect. of that _State, specify in 1.liis behalf. In exercise Of this eoWer the
·Central Government by its notification No. S. ·o _ -22 dated pecemb>!r 19, 1977
jjxed -a quota of 50 as· the" an. Indi_a ·tourist p:ermitS for each _State. _Tlle
petitioners challenged this quota as· discriminatory and v olaiive of Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
· DismiSsing the writ petit;ons,
HELD :- It appe~rS that.s. ti3 (7} was introduced after ascertaining the
needs of developing tourist ttade. The Central Government fixed q·uota of
50: permits -_for _each s'tate. It may _be that a smaller State like .ltimachal
Pradesh or Jamm:u and Kashmir [nay have -larger number of places of .tourist
interest. EqUally area-wjse the biggest State Madhya Pradesh:rnay have few
spOts' Of tou{ist intere~t. Therefore, Unless an t~e relevant facts are placed
on· record _which may point to the invidiousness of ;,: fiXing .a flat cj_uota,
_the Petitioners Contention
th:it the quo{a, is arbitray ari~ viOlative of Ar_t.
14 of the Constitution has no force. [5280-F, 525E)
....
1
'1 ..
r\
. J.
.
.. ~
..
+
. s. S\IAMSHUDDlN v. KARNATAKA (Desai, J.)
523
th~ Patlianient enact.ed Stib-s_. (7) of s. '63 conferring an enabling power
or State Transport Authority ·to grant a permit valid·for _the whole Of India
which but ftj-r 'the provfsion co~tained in Sub-s. (7) of s. 63 it was not en.titled to ·
grant -and that th_is power to grant was subject to the conditirn ·that the
Central Government will ·specify the quota. Therefore. the. quota is not seve-
rable ,frOm the power to grant the permit. ·Assuming that _the quota is
iS Severable fro_in -the enabling .Provision, no
materia~ .has been pla;;ed on
record to point out the needs of eacll State, the places of tourist intf!rest, the
influx of tourists, ihe facility for their boatding and lodgin·g_ and the con<f:ition ·
of roadS-in resPect of ea~a State. In the ·absence of this fact s!tuation, the
petitioners' submission that the'. expression, in respeCt of such tiumber of
tourist vehicles as the ·Central Go~rnment may-, in respect of that State.,
specify in this behalf' is severable and therefor'e ~he enabling pai"t of sub-s. (7)_
will permit St3.te Transport Authority in each State to grant all India tourist
Permit keeping- in "'.iew the ·need· of the tourists and the needs of the State,
cannot be examined on merits. [527H, 528A-B, 527G]
. '
It is reCO!llniended:that' in ·view or the· vast expanding tourist traffic-
the Central Governme,Qt mus.t undertake an exercise _·within, a reasonable .time
and .at regul~f intervals to re-evalute the quota of all India tourist permistS to
keep pace with devetOping notion of attracting tourists. [529C-D] _:
ORIGINAL JuRISDICl:ION ;
Writ Petitions Nos .. 13033-38
13650-52, 13197, 13355-58.-· 13389,
13393-97; 13003:_08;
13488,13654-67, 13850-.58, 13790 to 13801, 13836-49, of 1983,
A
B
c
D
8-22,24-30, 34-35, 126· 130 arid 223-26 of 1984
E
(Under artick 32 of the Constitutibn of India)
Advocates for the apJ]earing·parties :
S.S. Java/i, Mr. 'fJ.P. Singh, Ran1it Kumar, Shanti Bhushan,
K.R. Nagaraja, K.S, Hegde, S.K. Prasad, K.N. Bhatt, Ms. Madhu
Mulchandani, . RJJ.
Datar, N.K.
Sharma, P.N. Rama/ingam,
R. Ramachandran, V.K. VeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.