T. B. IBRAHIM versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TANJORE

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 05-12-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1953 
Dec. 5. 
• 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1953] 
• 
T. B. IBRAHIM 
v. 
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORI'l'Y, 
TAN JORE. 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHERJEA, 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, VIVIAN BOSE and 
GHULAM HASAN JJ.J 
• 
Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, r. 268-Amendment in 1950 
empowering Transport Authority to alter starting places or termini 
of vehicles-Whether ultra vires-Madras Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, 
ss. 76, 68(1) and (9) (r)-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19 (1) 
(g)-Infringement uf right to carry on profession-Reasonableness of 
restriction. 
Rule 268 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, as it 
originally stood did not empower the Transport Authority to alter 
from time to time the starting places and termini for motor 
vehicles. The rule was amended in 1950 so as to empower the 
Transport Authority to do so, and after giving notice to the appel-
lant who was the owner of a bus-stand in a municipality, which 
was being used for several years as the starting place and terminus 
for motor buses plying to and from the municipality, the Trans-
port Authority passed a resolution changing the starting place and 
terminus for the convenience of the public. The appellant applied 
for a writ of certiorari contending that r. 268 as amended was 
ultra vires as it went beyond the rule-making powers conferred by 
s. 68 (2) (r) of the Motor Vehicles Act and was also repugnant to 
art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution: 
Held, (i) that the fixing and alteration of bus-stands was not a 
purpose foreign to the "control of transport vehicles" 1 the pur-
pose for which rules could be made under s. 68 (1), and the power 
to make rules prohibiting the picking up or setting down of passen-
gers at specified places mentioned in s. 68 (2) (r) necessarily in-
cluded the power to alter. the situation of bus-stands, and r. 268 
as amended did not therefore go beyonds. 68 (2) (r); 
(ii) the restriction placed upon the use of the bus-staud for 
the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers to or from 
outward journeys cannot be considered to be an unreasonable res-
triction on the right to carry on any profession, trade or business 
of the appellant, and r. 268 was not 
in any way repugnant to 
art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution . 
The expression "duly notified stand" in the Madras Motor 
Vehicles Act means a stand duly notified by the Transport Autho· 
rity. There i~ no warrant for the view that it means a stand 
. . 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME- COURT REPORTS 
291 
notified by the municipality. 
The provisions of s. 270 (b), (c) and 
(e) do not affect the power of the Transport Authority to regulate 
traffic control or impose restrictions upon the licence of cart-stands. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Ap~eal 
No. 16 of 1952. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated Feb-
ruary 6, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras (Rajamannar C. J. and Somasundaram J.) 
in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 11307 of 1950, 
arising out of Order 
dated November 10, 1950, 
made in C. No. 2216-A-3-49 on the file of the Regional 
Transport Authority, Tanjore. 
G. R. Jagadisa Iyer for the appellant. 
V. K. T. Chari, Advocate-General of Madras, (V. V. 
Raghavan, with him) for the respondent. 
1952. December 5. The Judgment of .the Court 
was delivered by 
· 
GHULAM HASAN J.-This appeal brought by special 
leave under article 136 (1) of the Constitution is 
directed against the order dated February 6, 1951, of 
the High. Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing 
the petition of the appellant under article 226, pray-
ing for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the 
order da. ted N av.ember 10, 1950, passed by the res-
pondent in the following circumstances :-
The appellant is the lessee of a site in the town of 
Tanjore in the State of Madras upon which he has a 
bus-stand. 
The bus-stand originally belonged to the 
Tanjore Municipality and the appellant merely held 
a licence from that authority. Later on, the title of 
the Municipality to the site was questioned by a third 
party and in a ci vi! litigation which ensued the title 
of the Municipality was negatived. 
Thereupon the 
appellant obtained the lease-hold right of the site 
from the true owner and constructed a bus-stand con-
forming to the design approved by the Municipality. 
Besides sheds for passengers and vehicles it provided 
other amenities. It was situate near the Railway 
Station and piost of 
~hi) l;>us()s leaving Tanjore for 
~ll 
.. 
. 
.1953 
T. B. Ibrahim 
v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.