STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. versus K. G. JAGANNATH

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 27-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

170 
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
v. 
K. G. JAGANNATH 
March 27, 1973 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
/'.lysore Motor Vehicle Rules, 1963, r. 116(1)-Power to fix 111i11i111t1n1 
.seating capacity in a ·vublic service i:ehicle-lf valid. 
Rule 216(2) of the Mysore Motor Vehicle Rules, 1963, provides for 
the fixation of minimum seating capacity of a public 
service vehicle. 
Under a permit granted to hin1 the respondent was running a bus with a 
seating capacity of 30. 
He wanted to rCplace the bus with a new one 
and applied for permission to alter t'he seating capacity of the new bus 
from 40 to 30, but, the permission was refused. 
In a petition tor the 
issue of a Vr'rit of 111andamus, the High Court struck down the rule and 
directed the Regional Transport Officer to grant the necessary permission. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (i) The power conferred by s. 70 of the Act is wide enough 
to enable the making of the impugned rule. 
The validity of the rule 
has to be considered not merely from the . poi:nt of view of the effect it 
ha.5 on the particular· individual like the respondent but from the point 
of .view of the generality of the motor vehicle operators as welt as the 
public. 
There is no reason for not accepting the statement made 
on 
behalf of the State that passenger traffic on every route in the State had 
increased considerably, that generally it was found 
that stage carriage 
operators were carrying 
passengers 
in excess o'f the seating 
capacity 
specified in the registration certificate and the permit to the seripus incon~ 
venience and discomfort of the travelling public
1
, in additiqo to causing 
loss of revenue to the State, ·and· that it was with a view 
to eliminate 
such evils that the impugned rule had been framed. Jt is true that 
fhc 
·state has necessary machinery to check such ·contravention, but it cannot 
always succeed in doing so. 
[774D; 775D; 776B-D] 
(2) There is no -difficulty in getting the pern1it amended in order 
to -allow for the increased capacity, because. under Rule 131. the proce-
dure for replacing any vehicle covered hv a permit by a vehicle 
of a 
ditf.erent type or of a different capacity is made simple. 
1775B-C] 
(3) The tax on a bus with a minimum capacity of 40 is more than 
the tax on a bus with a minimum capacity of 30; but there is no basis for 
the ·contention that the ru1e is intended to secure more revenue indirectly; 
because, the State can do it directly by increasing the 
rate 
of tax. 
!776A-B] 
( 4) The High Court erred in holding that any regulation rel!.arding 
the minimum number, being unc·ommon has to be specially defended. 
The High Court also erred in ho1din~ that the State had not taken into 
account the prevailin~ conditions in the country with regard to the manu-
facture and availability of bus chassis. 
When a certain chassis is capa-
ble o'f havin~ a body constn1cted on it so that it can carrv a certain num-
ber of passengers to construct a lesser number of seats is waste of \'alu-
ahle transportation facility. 
[774E-F; 776D-FJ 
(5) Stage carriage operators, exclusively in cities and towns, form a 
·class by themselves and the exemntion in their case has a direct relation 
·to the objectil'es sought to be achieved. Therefore, there is no question 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
f) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MYSORE v. K. G. JAGANNATH (Alagiriswami, J.) 
771 
of anv arbitrary -or excessive invnsion of the respondent's rights. The 
rule iS o:ic of &eneral app'icatiofl' in the interest of the general travelling 
passengers. 
[776F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 141 of 
1972. 
Appeal by special leave from. the judgment and orde~ date~ 
April 15, 197 l of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore m Wnt 
Petition No. 5109 of 1970. 
H. B. Datar, and R. B. Datar, for the appellants. 
M. C. Setalvad and K. N. Bhatt, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was devlivered by 
· ALAGIRISWAMI, J. 
This is an appeal against the judgment ot 
the High Court of Mysore striking down Rule 216(2) of the 
Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, introduced on 7th October, 
1969, on the ground that it violates Article 
19( l )(g) of the. 
Constitution. 
The respondent, who is a transport operator plying buses bet-
ween Doddaballapur and Tumkur, wanted to replace one of his 
buses running on that route with a new one. 
Under the permit 
granted to him, which was valid up to 30-10-1975, his bus had a 
seating capacity of 30. 
On 2-11-

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