SUBHASH CHANDRA AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1024 · Decided: 12-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
102.J 
SUBHASH CHANDRA A."lD ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
February 12, 1980 
[V. R KRISHNA !YER AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.J 
Motor 
V~hicles Act, 1939, Section 51(2)-Wlzether Regional 
Transport 
Authority in1posing a condition that no permit shall be renelved in respect 
of vehicles wlticli are 7 years old is ultra-vires Article 19(1) (g) 
of 
the 
Constitution-Con1peterzcy of the R.T.A. to inzpose such a condition. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. 
J\lere lexical legalism cannot sterilise the sensible humanism 
writ large on s. 51(2) (x). If Indian life is not ultra vires Indian law every 
condition to save life and limb is intra vires such salvationary 
provision. 
[1025G] 
2. Section 51(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is geared to public 
safety, not piivate profit and casts a solemn duty not to be deterred 
by 
any pressure except the pressure of social justice to Indian lives moving in 
D 
buses, \Valking on roads or even standing on margins. If the top killer-
road nccident-is to be awarded death sentence, s. 51 and like provisions 
must receive severe enforcement. In this spirit-although backtracking from 
4-year-old models to 7-year-old models-the 
state 
imposed 
condition. 18. 
Section 51(2)(x) authorises the imp6st of "any condition" of course having 
a nexus with the statutory purpose. 
Human safety is one 
such 
purpose. 
E 
F 
(10250-F, H] 
3. From the point of view of the human rights of road users, the condi-
tion 
regarding 
the model of the permitted 
bus 
is 
within 
jurisdic~ 
tion and not to prescribed such safety clauses is abdication of statutory duty. 
There is no conflict between a vehicle being fit to ride and the 
condition 
as an additional requirement a.nd safety factor in the shape of the year and 
the model. 
This i<; an extra measure, a further insurance against machine 
failure and cannot contradict the 'fitness' provision. 
[11260, 1027A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition No. 1262 
of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19-2-1979 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 184 of 1975. 
G 
S. N. Kaicker, Mrs. S. Markendeya and S. 
Markendeya for the 
Petitioners. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-An order draped in relative brevity is sufficient 
since we are refusing leave to appeal although the issue raised is the 
vires of a provision. 
After due fulfilment of the obligation for oral hearing, we have con-
sidered the impact of two earlier decisions cited by Shri Kaicker sup-
• 
• 
-~ 
~-
• 
.. ._._ 
I 
. 
SUBHllSH CHANDER v. U.P. STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
1025 
1Posedly striking a nate conlrary to the judgment un<ler attack but feel 
I\. 
free-why, bound-to dismiss th' petition for special leave not merely 
''1 
·because the High Court is right but because justice to the travelling 
public-a lost cause 011 our made roads-conscientises to that course. 
• 
' 
• 
~· 
Tersely put, the petitioner is the grantee of permits to ply mini-
buses as contract carriages and in the grant a condition has . been 
fastened that the vehicle shall not be more than seven years old. 
Condition No. 18, relating to Mini-Buses Contract Carriage permits, 
.and the source of power, s. 51 (2 )(x) read thus : 
That the vehicle covered by the permit shall be not more 
than fO'ur years old counted from the date of registration at 
any time during \he validity of the permit. 
51 (2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to 
grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules 
that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any 
one or more of the following conditions, namely :- • 
(x) any other conditions which may be prnscribed. 
Section 51 (2) (x) any other. 
"Four years' have been relaxed to seven years since September 23, 
1978, the beneficiaries being the bus owners and the potential victims 
being the unknown casualties who have no 'poor lobby' power. 
The 
State must remember that it has responsibilities not merely to mini-bus 
owners, but also to avoid the daily tragedies on the Indian high 
ways under the lethal wheels of these whirling carriages. 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 ex-
cept the pressure of social justice to India'n lives moving in buses, walk-
ing on roads or even standing on margins. If the top killer-road 
.accident-is to be awarded death sentence, 

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