SRI SATYA NARAIN SINGH versus DISTRICT ENGINEER, P.W.D. AND ANOTHERS

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 08-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. 
. SU~REME COURT REPORTS 
105 
The contention urged before us is that this pro-
vision has no retrospective operation· and that in 
consequence t.he proceedings which had been pend-
ing before the old Tribunal on March 10, 1957, 
could not be transferred to the new Tribunal under 
thi" section. This content.ion is clearly untenable, 
because the whole object of s.30(2) is to provide 
for the hearing of disputes which were pending 
before the old Tribunal, and its operation is 
entirely retrospective. This contention must there-
fore be rejected. 
In the result, the repeal fails and is dismissed 
with costs. 
" 
A ppe,al dismissed. 
SRI SATYA NARAIN SINGH 
v. 
DISTRICT ENGINEER, P.W.D. AND ANOTHEli 
(B. P. SINHA, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH and J, R. M:uDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Pu.blic ferry--Toll-Right to 
coUe<t from Governrnent 
Roadway JJuses-Co nmercial undertaking by Government, if 
public service-Hotijication No 252/IX-209/ (10) dated March. 
JG, 1925-Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (XVII of 1878) 
• 15. 
The appellant being the highest bidder at a public auc· 
tion got the right to collect the toll in respect of ferry for 
crossing the river of Piprighat for the year 1954. The'practice 
upto 1954 wa.• to allow the licensee to collect the toll from 
every stage carriage bus. 
Till March of the year 1954 only 
privately owned stage carriage buses used to ply on the route. 
Thereafter the route \\'as taken over by the Roadways 
department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The applicant 
was informed 1'.nter alia that no toll \vas leviablc on the Road-
ways Vehicles and was asked to pay the monthly instalments 
of the 1ictnse fee without making any deduction therefor 
consequent upon the exemption of the Roadways buses from 
tolls. The point for consideration foter alia is whether tii~ 
1962 
Thi Atlus Cycl1 
lndnJtries. Ltd,, 
Sonepat 
v. 
Their Workmen 
Venkatarama 
Aiyar J. 
1962. 
Februaty II. 
1962 
S1i Saij'a N arai11 
~i11gh 
•• 
Di.1tric1 Enginttr, 
l'.lf'.O. 
Muilwlkar J. 
106 sePREME COCRT n.EP01{'f8 (HJ62] SCPP. 
appella11t was bouru.l tu allo\\'. the state carriage buses 0f U.P. 
Governrncnt tu cross the river by ferry \Vithout collecting 
any toll. 
/leld, that the notification No. 252/IX-209/( 10) dated 
March 16, 1925 exc1npts a vehicle crossing the river on 'pub-
lic or district board service', an<l 
it could not be said that 
plying motor busrs by way of comn1ercial activity is n1nning 
it on a public service. 'l'he vcluclcs of the lload,,·ays depart· 
mcnt of the Gover11mc11t of Uttar 
Pradesh crossing over 
ferries cannot be regarded as crossing on public service. 
It 
may be that plying stage carri<lge buses rvcn though for hire 
is an activity undertaken by the Government for ensur-
ing the people a cheap, regular and reliable. 1node of tr:lnsport 
and is in that sense beneficial to the public, but it does not 
cease to be a co1nn1crcial activjty if it is run with 1profit mo1ive. 
The vehicles of the Road,vays crossing the river cannot be 
exempted under the l'iotification of March 15, 1925. 
Jleld, further that activities undertaken in the exercise of 
the sovereign power of the state or of Governn1enta} functions 
arc undoubtedly to be regarded as public services bul a pure 
business undertaking though run by the Govcrninent cannot 
be classified as pubJic service. 
An activity however beneficial 
to the people and hov\'cvCr useful cannot reasonably be regar-
ded as public service an<l cease to be a commercial undertak-
ing if it is of a type \\'hich n1ay be carried on by private· 
individuals ahd is carried on by Government \\'ith a distinct 
profit rnotivc. lly 
reason of the fact 
that a co1nmercial 
undertaking is O\'t·ncd and run by the State, it docs not ipso 
fachJ Uccome a "public service". 
Crvn. APPELLA'rE Ju1mm!C'nox: C. A. No. 
4:J5 of 1958. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
September :10, 1!156 of the Allahabad High Court in 
~pectal Appeal Xo. 243 of 1955. 
Naunit Lal for the appellant. 
G. N. Dikshit and C. P. Lal for tho 1-tespon-
dent. 
1962. February 8. 
The following Judgment 
of the Court was delivered by 
:\IuDHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by certi-
ficate from tho judgment of the High Court of 
-
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
107 • 
Allahabad reversing the decision of a single Judge 
of that Court directing the issue of a writ of Manda-
mus against the respondents under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution. The points which arise for considera-
tion in th

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