Gujarat High Court
Shrinath Travel Agency Pvt. Ltd vs The Police Commissioner on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 957 of 2022
=============================================
SHRINATH TRAVEL AGENCY PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
=============================================
Appearance:
PARTH S SHAH(8375) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
TANAYA G SHAH(8430) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 19/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of present petition invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the
Notification No.G/UPK/Traffic/4/2022 dated 08.01.2022 issued
by the respondent No.1 to the extent that it prohibits and
restricts the transit of private passenger buses in Ahmedabad
City between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. which; (i) weigh more
than 7500 kg (ii) with a seating capacity for 33 passengers or
more and (iii) a sleeping facility vehicles. Being aggrieved by
the aforesaid Notification, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:
"18. The Petitioner prayers that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
Final relief
I. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the Notification no.
G/UPK/Traffic/04/2022 dated 08.01.2022 issued by Respondent No. 1
to be unconstitutional in violation inter alia, of Articles 14, Article 19(1)
(d) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and to quash and
set aside the same, to the extent that it prohibits and restricts the
transit of private passenger buses in Ahmedabad city between 8 am
and 10 pm which:
(i) weigh more than 7500 kg, or
(ii) are sleeping facility vehicles, or
(iii) with a seating capacity for more than 33 passengers or more.
II. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding Respondent No. 1 not to issue any
notification/order in exercise of powers under Section 33(1)(b) and (c)
of the Gujarat Police Act similar to or in the nature of the Impugned
Notification, in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, without
application of mind, without offering valid reasons in support based on
prevailing facts and circumstances and without due consultation of all
stakeholders, and which is discriminatory and imposes unreasonable
restrictions on fundamental rights of the Petitioners and the like.
III. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding Respondent No. 1 to publish all the
rules, notifications, orders passed under Section 33 of the Gujarat
Police Act on the website in a manner that the same are available and
accessible to the Petitioner.
IV. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding Respondent No. 1 to provide to private
operators of passenger vehicle and heavy and medium vehicles
(including luxury buses) including the Petitioner:
i Adequate routes to ply such vehicles in the city of Ahmedabad
for 24 hours i.e. round the clock;
ii At least ten passenger hubs in Ahmedabad city as highlighted in
Annexure 40, and;
iii Entry and exit points to and from Ahmedabad city.
IV.A. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or
a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction declaring any notification/order in exercise of powers
under Section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Gujarat Police Act similar to or in
the nature of the Impugned Notification issued by Respondent No.1
after issuance of Impugned Notification to be quashed and set-aside as
it is discriminatory and imposes unreasonable restrictions on
fundamental rights of the Petitioners and the like.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
Interim relief
V. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and
execution of Notification no. G/UPK/Traffic/04/2022 dated 08.01.2022
issued by Respondent No. 1, to the extent that it prohibits and restricts
the transit of private passenger buses in Ahmedabad city between 8
am and 10 pm which:
(i) weigh more than 7500 kg, or
(ii) are sleeping facility vehicles, or
(iii) with a seating capacity for more than 33 passengers or more.
V.A. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
staying the operation, implementation and execution of any
notification/order in exercise of powers under Section 33(1)(b) and (c)
of the Gujarat Police Act similar to or in the nature of the Impugned
Notification issued by Respondent No.1 after issuance of Impugned
Notification as it is discriminatory and imposes unreasonable
restrictions on fundamental rights of the Petitioners and the like.
VI. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding Respondent No. 1 not to issue further notification/order in
exercise of powers under Section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Gujarat Police
Act similar to or in the nature of the Impugned Notification, in an
arbitrary and mechanical manner, without application of mind, without
offering valid reasons in support based on prevailing facts and
circumstances and without due consultation of all stakeholders, and
which is discriminatory and imposes unreasonable restrictions on
fundamental rights of the Petitioners and the like.
VII. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding Respondent No. 1 to provide to private operators of
passenger vehicle and heavy and medium vehicles (including luxury
buses) including the Petitioner:,
i. Adequate routes to ply such vehicles in the city of
ii. Ahmedabad for 24 hours i.e. round the clock; At least four
passenger hubs in Ahmedabad city as highlighted in Annexure
P-40, and;
iii. Entry and exit points to and from Ahmedabad city.
VIII. For ad-interim relief in terms of prayer at para 18 (V), (VI), and
(VII) above;
IX. for costs;
X. for such other and further orders ad the nature and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
circumstances of the case may require in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Ms. Karuna Nandy, learned advocate with Mr.
Amanpreet Singh, learned advocate with Mr. Parth S. Shah,
learned advocate with Ms. Tanaya G. Shah, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -
State.
3. The present petition is filed through the petitioner No.2 -
the Managing Director of the petitioner No.1 Company, which
is part of the Shrinath Group of Companies founded by the
petitioner No.2 in 1978 and is one of the most popular bus
service operators in India. The petitioners' group operates in
number of State such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi. The key operations
of the petitioner are in the tourism industry although, the
business is expanded into other domains such as logistics, real
estate, airport-tarmac coaches, staff transportation and
entertainment.
3.1 The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the Notification
No.G/UPK/Traffic/4/2022 dated 08.01.2022 issued by the Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad City on various grounds consisting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
of and not limiting to encroaching on fundamental and legal
right of trade, arbitrary action and illegality by the respondent
No.1 amongst others. The said Notification has purported
intent to control pollution, traffic and accidents in Ahmedabad
City and disallows the vehicles that have sleeper facilities or
more than 33 passengers seats and weigh more than 7500 kg,
to operate between 8:00 am and 11:00 pm in the City. It
creates exceptions, for various other classes of heavy vehicles,
including S.T. buses, BRTS buses, AMTS buses as well as
vehicles for RTO work, those used for transport of essential
goods, all college and school buses, vehicles carrying
passengers on occasions like marriage and death, Fire Brigade,
Ambulances, Govt. vehicles and heavy and medium goods
vehicles.
3.2 The restrictions on the entry of private buses in
Ahmedabad City began in the year 2003. The most relevant
purposes for filing the present petition read thus:
(a) The restriction akin to the impugned Notification on
transit of private passenger vehicles in Ahmedabad City
by the respondent No.1 was first seen on 18.12.2003.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
(b) The respondent No.1 then issued the Notification
dated 21.06.2004 prohibiting the entry of heavy vehicles
and passenger buses in the City limits from 9:00 am to
11:00 pm. However, the heavy vehicles and passenger
buses were given exemptions to ply 24 hours using 4
prescribed routes. From 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm, 6 other
routes for use by heavy vehicles and passenger buses
and goods carriage vehicles were prescribed.
(c) The Notification dated 16.11.2004 similarly,
restricted transit of heavy vehicles between 9:00 am and
11:00 pm. 10 routes were indicated in the said
Notification where heavy and medium vehicles (including
luxury buses) were allowed to ply for 24 hours i.e. round
the clock. Four of these routes also had allotted parking
lots for heavy vehicles and passenger buses.
(d) Subsequently and without due application of mind
or legitimate reasons, the Notifications dated 15.04.2017,
23.12.2017, 16.10.2019 and 06.02.2021 do not allow
private buses to ply any routes whatsoever in
Ahmedabad City during the day.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
(e) The impugned Notification dated 27.08.2021
imposes restrictions on the transit of heavy vehicles from
8:00 am to 11:00 pm, without any provision of routes or
allotment of parking lots.
(f) Further, the Notification issued on 08.01.2022
restricts the transit of private passenger buses in
Ahmedabad City from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm.
3.3 The aforesaid restrictions imposed by the respondent
No.1 under Section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Gujarat Police Act,
1951 only allows regulation and not prohibitions. The
respondent No.1 has been effectively re-notifying and
tightening the same restrictions without due consideration of
changes in the circumstances surrounding traffic in the
Ahmedabad City. Under such circumstances, the respondent
No.1 must in exercise of powers under Section 33(1)(b) and (c)
address the facts and circumstances that exist at the time of
making any rules or regulations.
3.4 The relevant circumstances in question, and the
compelling State interest cited, are with regard to pollution,
traffic and accidents. Today, there is a recorded improvement
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
in the pollution, traffic congestion and accidents in Ahmedabad
City attributable to private bus operators, as demonstrated
through the reports and studies duly annexed to the petition.
The petitioners and similar private bus operators have
equipped their buses with modern, environment friendly
technology that reduces pollution significantly. Further, two
wheelers, cars and state passenger vehicles that are allowed in
Ahmedabad without restriction and necessitated by the
absence of private bus operators, contribute more to pollution
than private buses. The state buses are generally older and
thus cause more pollution in comparison to newer private
buses. Moreover, two-wheelers constitute more than 70% of
the vehicles on the road, while the private buses constitute
less than 1% as per the reports quoted in the petition, two
wheelers are also the largest cause of accidents and traffic.
3.5 The petitioners filed RTIs dated 01.07.2021 with the
respondent No.1 to ascertain the basis of the restrictions
imposed on the transit of private buses. However, the answers
to the said RTIs failed to establish the private buses as the
significant cause for the pollution, traffic and accidents in
Ahmedabad City. The number of accidents and registrations of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
private buses as quoted by respondent No.1 in the RTI
response are negligible compared to those of other vehicles on
the road. The RTI filed with the Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation (GSRTC) seeking various information pertaining to
the age of buses employed and pollution norms followed by
the GSRTC to which, GSRTC replied on 17.07.2021 wherein,
the GSRTC did not give any information as sought for but
stated that GSRTC purchased buses as per applicable CMVR
Rules and as per applicable emission norms. Further, a
representation dated 01.07.2021 to the respondent No.1 with
respect to the restrictions imposed by such Notifications issued
from time to time is remained unresponded.
3.6 All the reports show that lack of adequate mass transport
such as buses and increased use of private vehicles
particularly, two wheelers are the cause of pollution, traffic and
accidents in the Ahmedabad City. In fact, only 12% of the
people in Ahmedabad City use public transport. The increased
use of public and mass transport is stated as the solution to
the problem of pollution, traffic and accidents in Ahmedabad
City. Private buses like that of the petitioners that act as mass
transport and serve the common people will in reality, help
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
alleviate the traffic and accidents, and reduce the pollution in
the city.
3.7 The Notification dated 16.11.2004 issued by the
respondent No.1 was challenged before this Court by filing
Special Civil Application No.14245 of 2005. The said
Notification unlike the impugned notification provided for 10
routes where heavy and passenger buses would transit all 24
hours. Further, four parking lots for the heavy vehicles and
passenger buses. After dismissal of the Special Civil
Application, a Division Bench of this Court by order dated
14.02.2006 dismissed the appeal on the finding that the
restrictions are reasonably given that the Notification only
regulated the movement of the buses and did not act as a
prohibition. An appeal via Special Leave was made to the
Supreme Court of India against this order on the limited point
of one specific road in Ahmedabad City was dismissed.
3.8 Despite improvement in the pollution, accidents and
traffic caused by private buses, a negligible absolute
contribution to these problems in Ahmedabad City, according
to expert opinion, they are part of the solution - the impugned
Notifications issued by the respondent No.1 prescribed no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
routes for 24 hour travel and are far more restrictive than the
2004 Notification. The restrictions imposed on the transit of
private passenger vehicles vide the impugned Notification are
incorrectly tailored, disproportionate and an unreasonable
incursion on the petitioners' fundamental right to carry out its
business, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
and this right cannot be curtailed to an extent greater than
necessary or allowed under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
3.9 The 'deprivation' or 'prohibition' by the impugned
Notification hence are liable to be set aside under Article 13(2)
for violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners, other
private bus operators and the five lakh people that they
employ, since it doesn't fall within the ambit of "reasonable
restrictions" under Article 19(6). The impugned arbitrary
restriction imposed by the impugned Notification 27.08.2021
has adversely affected the private bus industry in Ahmedabad.
The industry has been reeling under the impact of the
unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic like many other businesses
in India and all over the world. The restrictions on the private
passenger buses is arbitrary and has no rational nexus with the
object it seeks to achieve contrary to Article 14 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
Constitution of India.
3.10 For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners through the
present petition seek that the impugned Notification No.G/UPK/
Traffic/4/2022 dated 08.01.2022 and various such previous
Notifications be set aside to the extent that it imposes an
unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the
petitioners and other private bus operators. Further, the
petitioners seek that the respondent No.1 be ordered to
conduct public consultations with affected stakeholders and
record reasons with specific reference to prevailing
circumstances which accord with an order to be passed
restraining the respondent from imposing any arbitrary or
discriminatory restriction on the prior to limiting transit of any
class or sub-class of vehicles in the City. In view of the
aforesaid set of facts, the petitioners herein have filed the
present petition with the prayers as referred above.
4. Ms. Karuna Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that the impugned Notification
No.G/UPK/Traffic/4/2022 dated 08.01.2022 issued by the
respondent No.1 prohibits the movement of inter-alia normal
sized private buses (except minis) from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
The objective of this Notification is claimed to control traffic
and accidents in Ahmedabad City, which adversely affects the
petitioners, a leading bus company its right to ply private
buses on public roads and carry on the business of
transporting passengers with the aid of vehicles under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the
ratio as laid down in case of Saghir Ahmad vs. State of U.P. &
Ors., reported in AIR 1954 SC 728.
4.1 Ms. Nandy, learned advocate, placing reliance on (2012)
5 SCC 1 in case of Ramlila Maidan Incident submitted that the
impugned Notifications travel beyond the scope of reasonable
restrictions wherein the fundamental right to carry on business
is infringed and the same can be said to be a 'prohibition'. Ms.
Nandy, learned advocate submitted that the Notification of
2004 was a reasonable and constitutional Notification wherein,
the restrictions allowed 6 routes that could be used for plying
buses for 4 hours in the day time. The aforesaid Notification
was issued after holding consultations with the stake holders
and the restrictions were relaxed to 10 routes for 24 hours.
Further, four parking lots for heavy vehicles and passenger
buses were allotted by the said Notification dated 16.11.2004.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
4.2 Ms. Nandy, learned advocate submitted that the said
Notification dated 16.11.2004 issued by the respondent No.1
was subject matter of challenge wherein, it was concurrently
held by 3 Judicial Forums i.e. Special Civil Application No.14245
of 2005 which came to be dismissed, the order dated
14.02.2006 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.244 of 2006
and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upholding the
orders passed by this Court on the finding that the restrictions
reasonably given and that the Notification only regulated the
movement of the buses and did not act as a prohibition.
Reliance was placed on the ration as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2020) 3 SCC 637, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
4.3 Ms. Nandy, learned advocate, further placing reliance on
the facts of the present petition, submitted that the petitioners
filed RTI dated 01.07.2021 with the office of the respondent
No.1 to ascertain the basis on which such restrictions were
repeatedly imposed. The same was responded too by the
respondent authority however, it was stated that no reply is
received from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation after the
queries of the petitioners with respect to the pollution were
transferred.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
4.4 Ms. Nandy, learned advocate, submitted that buses are
known to reduce traffic. Placing reliance on the RTI response
received from the State, it was submitted that the root cause
of traffic, accidents and pollution in Ahmedabad City is the
exponential increase in registration by private vehicles which
totaled to 40 lakhs. It was submitted that the respondent
No.1's own data shows that increase is attributable to the two
wheelers and not buses.
4.5 Ms. Nandy, learned advocate, submitted that the action
plan for control of air pollution in non-attainment City of
Gujarat (Ahmedabad) by Gujarat Pollution Control Board states
that the total number of vehicles registered in Ahmedabad in
June, 2018 is 40,78,718 out of which, passenger buses are
36,928 (0.90%) and two wheelers are 28,78,309(70.56%).
Reliance was placed on the study by CEPT University,
Ahmedabad, wherein the study conducted on "Managing
Urban Logistics in an Expanding City - Case Study of
Ahmedabad" by Dr. Deepak Baindur and Prof. Shivanand
Swamy of CEPT University, discusses the restrictions on heavy
vehicles and finds that there are issued with its effectiveness.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
4.6 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Nandy,
learned advocate, submitted that the present Notifications
affects interstate intercourse, commerce and trade and are
violative of Article 301. It was submitted that these
Notifications are not saved by Article 304 which allows
restrictions by the State as the Notifications are promulgated
by the Commissioner of Police under Section 33(1)(b) and (c)
of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 under delegated authority. Ms.
Nandy, learned advocate, submitted that the impugned
Notification promulgated repeatedly without adequate
determining principle or consideration of prevailing facts and
circumstances is violative of Article 14 and placed reliance on
the decision rendered in case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of
India, reported in 2017 (9) SCC 1 wherein, it was held that the
exercise undertaken by the legislature without proper
consideration will be considered as manifestly arbitrary.
4.7 Ms. Nandy, learned advocate submitted that the
impugned Notification creates two classes between (i) goods
trucks and private buses and; (ii) state buses and private
buses. The classifications are not based on any intelligible that
has a rational nexus with the object that it purportedly seeks
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
to achieve and the same is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
4.8 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Nandy,
learned advocate submitted that the impugned Notification be
modified to the extent as prayed for by the petitioner in the
present petition.
5. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent State, submitted that the
petitioner company has 64 buses which fall into the category
of heavy passenger vehicles and the said data is as per the
record of 2014 when the petitioner had approached the
authorities for certain permissions. Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP,
submitted that while seeking to challenge the impugned
Notification No.G/UPK/TRAFFIC/18/2023 dated 10.04.2023
issued by the respondent No.1 which restricts the movements
of private buses from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm to control traffic,
pollution, accidents in the Ahmedabad City, the petitioner has
violated the said Notification.
5.1 Reliance was placed on the C.C.T.V. footage from
09.08.2023 to 13.09.2023 which shows that the petitioner and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
other private buses have violated the Notifications and
therefore, the submission of the petitioner that the respondent
authority through the drive undertaken has not followed the
statutory mechanism, are unreliable. It was submitted that the
submissions advanced by the petitioners that the petitioners
are following the statute and due process of law and that the
petitioners are law abiding citizens is contrary to what is stated
by the petitioners. It was submitted that the petitioners in the
last month violated at-least 35 times the Notification dated
10.04.2023 in view thereof, the petition is not maintainable as
it is not violative of any constitutional or statutory provision.
5.2 Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP further submitted that the
challenge in the present petition is not with respect to the
statutory competence of the authorities but to the effect that
the petitioner is being unequally and not allowed to operate in
the Ahmedabad City from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm which is
misleading statement on oath and suppression of material
facts. Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP, submitted that the petitioners
have also taken assistance of Central Road Research Institute
('CRRI' at New Delhi), CEPT University at Ahmedabad
undertaken research activities in order to mitigate the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
problems of traffic congestion and deaths occurring due to
'heavy vehicles' (the buses of the petitioner would fall within
aforesaid head).
5.3 Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP, submitted that the impugned
Notification could not be said to be arbitrary much less trying
to create a class within a class of bus operators whereby
exemption are granted to BRTS, AMTS and GSRTC and
restrictions are sought to be imposed upon the petitioner. As
far as the BRTS and AMTS are concerned, the said bus
operators are different from the petitioner as they operate only
in the municipal limits of the Ahmedabad City and fall within
the definition of 'stage carriage' and not 'contract carriage'
catering to a citizenry of over 6.5 lakh passengers
(approximately) on daily basis.
5.4 Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP, submitted that the Notification
dated 21.06.2004 stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
wherein, the reasonable restrictions is permissible. Reliance
was placed on the Chart placed on record by Ms. Nandy,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner wherein, it was
shown that the private cars are plying single passenger while
private buses (petitioner is a private bus company) are plying
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
140 passengers at a time therefore, the submissions advanced
by the petitioner that private cars are causing more pollution,
more traffic hurdles and more accidents against the private
buses as plying 140 passengers at a time cannot create
hurdles in traffic, create less pollution than the private cars
and no issues of accidents; to the said submission, Ms. Bhatt,
learned AGP submitted that any private bus cannot ply 140
passengers; even otherwise, the petitioner company cannot
ply 140 passengers in the City. The petitioners' company
plying its buses intercity and interstate and therefore, the said
Chart is not applicable in the facts of the present case.
5.5 Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP submitted that the impugned
Notification infringes the right of business whereby there is
restriction to ply the buses between 8:00 am to 10:00 pm only
and it is restrained for plying in the City only to avoid traffic
congestion during peak hours of traffic in the City and the
transportation of the passengers, mini buses are allowed and
the petitioner can transport their passengers through mini
buses at the outskirts of the City therefore, the petitioners are
not restricted or enjoy their fundamental rights of business. It
was submitted that the traffic conditions in the year 2004 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
2023 cannot be compared as the traffic is 10 times higher than
2004 and therefore, it cannot be said that 2004 Notification
was reasonable and was balancing the rights of public interest
in preventing traffic, accident, pollution as it was convenient of
public and bus operators in the prevailing facts and
circumstances at that time.
5.6 Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP submitted that in the year 2004,
there were 400 companies registered as private transporters
and in the year 2023, there are many more companies
registered as private transporters for plying intercity and
interstate transportation. In the year 2014, the petitioner
company was having 67 buses as per the record availed by the
respondent authority and compared to that presently, the
number of buses having increased, if all the transporters are
allowed to ply their buses during peak hours, the same would
result in hindering the traffic.
5.7 Ms. Bhatt, learned AGP, submitted that the impugned
Notification which is subject matter of challenge by the
petitioner is binding all the buses or heavy vehicles to enter in
the City in peak hours i.e. 8:00 am to 10:00 pm and therefore,
the contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
Notification infringes the rights of business to the petitioner of
transporting passengers may not be accepted by this Court.
Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned AGP placed reliance on the FIR lodged
on 04.10.2023 wherein the accident took place on Sola Over-
bridge in the morning hours by the private bus in which 23
years old boy passed away though, there is no permission
granted to pay within the City limit of Ahmedabad between
8:00 am to 10:00 pm.
5.8 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Bhatt,
learned AGP submitted that no interference is called for in the
impugned Notification issued by the respondent No.1 imposing
reasonable restrictions to ply the private buses, heavy vehicles
from 8:00 am to 10:00 pm.
Analysis
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, in the facts of the present case, the
petitioner herein is a company in business of bus services
since 1978. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the
impugned Notification No.G/UPK/Traffic/4/2022 dated
08.01.2022 issued by the respondent No.1, duly produced at
page 757 to the petition, imposing ban on all types of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
passenger vehicles with a capacity of more than 33 passengers
from entering in the Ahmedabad City from 8:00 am to 10:00
pm under the powers conferred under Section 33(1)(b) and (c)
of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951.
6.1 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Notification dated
08.01.2022 and other Notifications issued from time to time
pending the present petition, the petitioner herein has
approached this Court.
6.2 An identical Notification dated 16.11.2004 issued by the
respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under section 33(1)(b)
of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, was subject matter of
challenge before this Court. The Special Civil Application
No.14245 of 2005 arising out of the said Notification came to
be dismissed by order dated 13.09.2005. The said order of
dismissal was challenged by preferring the Letters Patent
Appeal No.244 of 2006 which came to be dismissed by order
dated 14.02.2006.
6.3 At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 33(1)(b)
and (c) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, which reads thus:
"33.(1) The Commissioner, with respect to all or any of the following
make rules or matters specified in this sub-section and the District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
Magistrate, with respect to all regulation of traffic and for or any of the
said matters except the matters referred to in sub-section (IAA), may
preservation of make, alter or rescind rules or orders not inconsistent
with this Act, in areas under their respective charges or any part
thereof namely:-
XXXX
(b) regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places, and the
use of streets and public places by persons riding, driving, cycling,
walking or leading or accompanying cattle, so as to prevent danger,
obstruction or inconvenience to the public;
(c) regulating the conditions under which vehicles may remain
standing in streets and public places, and the use of streets as halting
places for vehicles or cattle."
7. The respondent No.1 under Section 33(1)(b) as referred
above is empowered to put reasonable restrictions under the
provisions of the Act and in view thereof, the impugned
Notifications, in the opinion of this Court, are not violative of
Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.
8. Considering the grievance raised by the petitioners that
the Notification creates two classes between (i) goods trucks
and private buses and; (ii) state buses and private buses, the
said classification does not have rational and is violative of
Article 14. To the aforesaid contention raised by the petitioners
herein, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner herein is in
business of plying its private buses inter-state and intra-state
and a 'contract carriage'. By the impugned Notification, all the
private buses are restricted to ply its buses between 8:00 am
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
to 10:00 pm in the Ahmedabad City only to avoid the traffic
congestion during peak hours traffic in the City. The
transportation of passengers in the private mini buses is
allowed. The petitioners can carry their passengers through
mini buses to the outskirts of the City therefore, there is no
restriction to the enjoyment of the petitioners' fundamental
right to carry on trade/business.
The aforesaid was considered in Letters Patent Appeal
No.244 of 2006 and in the opinion of this Court, the impugned
Notification issued by the respondent No.1 does not in anyway
violative of Article 19(1)(d), Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(1)
(6) of the Constitution.
8.1 It is apposite to refer to the order dated 14.02.2006
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.244 of 2006 wherein, the
subject matter of challenge is with respect to the Notification
dated 16.04.2004 issued by the Police Commissioner,
Ahmedabad City under Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police
Act for regulating the movement of heavy and medium
vehicles in the Ahmedabad City. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 and 12 read thus:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
"4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not
inclined to admit this appeal for the following reasons:-
In the first place, in public interest litigation being Special Civil
Application No.4038 of 2005 this very notification was challenged and
another Bench of this Court dismissed the petition on the ground that
the petitioner therein did not file objections at an appropriate stage;
that the purpose to eliminate pollution in the city of Ahmedabad is
laudable since Ahmedabad is suffering enormously from pollution and
also on the ground that there was no public interest involved in filing
that petition. We are bound by the aforesaid decision of the coordinate
Bench of this Court.
5. Secondly, the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject
to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the Legislature in
the interests of the general public as provided in Article 19(6). Section
33(1)(b) and (c) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 confer powers on the
Commissioner of Police in respect of the following matters :-
"(b) regulating traffic of all kinds in streets, and public places,
and the use of streets and public places, and the use of streets
and public places by persons riding, driving, cycling walking or
leading or accompanying cattle, so as to prevent danger,
obstruction or inconvenience to the public;
(c) regulating the conditions under which vehicles may remain
standing in streets and public places, and the use of streets as
halting places for vehicles or cattle;"
The impugned notification dated 16.11.2004 squarely falls
within the ambit of the power conferred by the above statutory
provisions.
The buses being plied by the appellant and similar other private
bus operators are admittedly heavy vehicles. The Court can take
judicial notice of the fact that a group of private bus operators operate
in a cluster from certain locations within the city which have very
heavy traffic congestion and that these buses also pass through heavy
traffic areas.
6. Thirdly, we have also examined the reasonableness of the
restrictions. The impugned notification does not impose absolute
prohibition on movement of heavy and medium vehicles round the
clock, but only for about 12 hours between 9.00 AM and 9.00 PM.. The
impugned notification, therefore, does not impose absolute prohibition,
but only provides for regulation of traffic during the particular number
of hours, unlike the notification issued by the authorities in Chennai -
as is clear from the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the appellant. The Madras High Court found fault with the absolute
prohibition of operation of the omni buses within the city round the
clock. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Court observed that
other heavy vehicles were allowed to operate between 8.00 PM and
8.00 AM, but the request of the Tamilnadu Omni Bus Operators
Association to permit them to operate within the city between 5.00 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
and 5.00 AM. Was rejected. Their Lordships of the Madras High Court,
therefore, held that they did not find any justification for total
restrictions in the case of Omni buses operated by private operators.
In the instant case, however, restrictions are imposed by the
Police Commissioner on all the heavy vehicles including omni buses
and prohibition is also for about 12 hours and not round the clock as
already indicated earlier.
Moreover, the Tamilnadu State Government had defended the
notification impugned before it only on the basis of Section 115 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which confers power on the State
Government to restrict the use of vehicles in the interest of public
safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge.
We do not find any reference to any provision similar to those in
Section 33 (1) (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 invoked by the Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad in the present case. We are of the view
that the provisions of Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act confer
much wider powers than the provisions of Section 115 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
In view of the above notable distinctions, we do not think that
the decision of the Madras High Court is of any avail to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel would, however, submit that the appellant
and similar other bus operators are ready to give an assurance that
they will not park their buses on the public roads and that the buses
will stop near their pick-up points only to pick up the passengers or to
drop the passengers for a few minutes.
Such assurance would be of no avail because in any case the
buses would be moving on the public roads with heavy traffic
congestion within the city areas. Even otherwise, it is not possible to
accept that such buses will not be parked or kept stationary for some
time. The buses will certainly be parked in the concerned areas with
heavy traffic congestion within the city limits for 15 to 30 minutes
before the scheduled time of departure and some times the departure
of buses may be delayed waiting for the passengers coming from other
pick-up points.
8. As regards the pollution being caused by the emissions from
such heavy and medium diesel vehicles which are generally run on
diesel, no discussion is necessary. The Police Commissioner has also
referred to the noise pollution being caused by such heavy and
medium vehicles whose drivers are in the habit of driving even within
the city at fast speed and honking horns every now and then. It is
sufficient to scare the aged and young walking on the roads or the
students moving on bicycles.
9. As regards the contention that there are very few buses and
that there are hardly 50 such buses being plied within the city and that
it is discriminatory to regulate their movement without regulating the
movement of all the buses plying within the city, the submission is
misconceived. There is no authentic material on record regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
number of private buses in the city of Ahmedabad. In any view of the
matter, buses for college and school students and the staff buses for
companies constitute a separate class by themselves. Such buses pick
up students and staff in the early morning hours and drop them in the
evening hours. Moreover, in the very nature of things, plying of such
buses for students and staff of different companies within the city
limits results into less private vehicles on public roads and thus
reduces the traffic congestion.
10. As regards the grievance made about discrimination vis-a-vis
the vehicles of public authorities like Ahmedabad Municipal Transport
Service, the latter also constitute a separate class altogether. The
buses of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, most of which
now run on CNG, cater to the passengers commuting within the city
and, therefore, prohibiting movement of such buses within the city
area would again mean compelling those passengers to use private
vehicles adding to the traffic congestion rather than relieving it. The
buses being plied by the appellant and other private bus operators are
not granted stage carriage permits but they are only granted contract
carriage permits i.e. for carrying entire groups of passengers from one
city to another and they are not supposed to carry individual
passengers. It is only the buses of the State Road Transport
Corporation which are authorized to carry individual passengers from
one city to another. The State Transport Corporation Depot is located
in the Jamalpur area which is in one corner of the city from where the
ST Corporation buses move out of Ahmedabad city.
11. The impugned notification imposes restrictions on the
movement of heavy and medium vehicles, such as the omni buses
being plied by the private bus operators and inconvenience caused to
a few bus operators or a few passengers travelling in their buses
cannot outweigh the needs of the general public running into several
lakhs of them. Moreover, it is possible for the appellant and similar
other bus operators to take care of the problem by providing for small
vehicles like mini buses or maxi cabs to take their passengers from the
pick-up points within the city area to the parking places outside the
city limits from where the omni buses can go to their respective
destinations.
12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in any
of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed."
8.2 The said order passed in Letters Patent Appeal was
subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.08.2012. The
aforesaid ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
would also govern the facts of the present case.
9. This Court deems it fit to deal with the position of law as
relied upon by Ms. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioners as under:
9.1 In AIR 1954 SC 728 in case of Saghir Ahmad vs. The State
Of U. P. And Ors., in the facts of the said case, the question for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that the
petitioners were persons who were operating motor vehicles
for gain on public highways of the State. The petitioners were
in necessary permit to operate the vehicles under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939. The State of U.P by virtue of powers
conferred upon it by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Act, 1950 stopped some of the petitioners from plying their
vehicles on the public highways and instead commenced
plying vehicles of their own.
In the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein are
'contract carriage' and there is no prohibition to ply the
vehicles inter-state or intra-state. However, in the interest of
public at large, the respondent No.1 thought it fit to put
reasonable restrictions qua plying of heavy vehicles and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
private buses in the Ahmedabad City between 8:00 am to
10:00 pm.
9.2 In (2020) 3SCC 637 in case of Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union
Of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suspending
internet services indefinitely is impermissible. Paragraph 160.3
and 160.9 of the said decision reads thus:
"160.3 An order suspending internet services indefinitely is
impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services
(Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. Suspension can be
utilised for temporary duration only.
160.9 In any case, the State/authorities concerned are directed
to consider forthwith allowing government websites, localised/limited
e-banking facilities, hospital services and other essential services, in
those regions, wherein the internet services are not likely to be
restored immediately."
In the facts of the present case, there is only reasonable
restriction in public interest and in view thereof, the aforesaid
ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case considering the fact
that the business of the petitioners herein is in no way
curtailed.
9.3 In (2017) 9 SCC 1 and (2017) 10SCC 1 in case of
Shayara Bano vs. Union of India and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy &
Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
have guarded the rights of the citizens wherein, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
fundamental rights are abridged.
In the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this
Court, neither legal nor fundamental right is abridged by the
action undertaken by the respondent No.1.
10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union Of India &
Ors. vs. Hindustan Development Corpn. & Ors., reported in AIR
1994 SC 988. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the said
decision read thus:
"33-34 On examination of some of these important decisions it is
generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant
sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair
hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or
withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope
to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no
crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate
expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where
an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words where
a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular
then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by
showing some overriding public interest. Therefore even if substantive
protection of such expectation is contemplated that does not grant an
absolute right to a particular person. It simply ensures the
circumstances in which that expectation may be denied or restricted. A
case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by
representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would
be within its powers to fulfill. The protection is limited to that extent
and a judicial review can be within those limits. But as discussed above
a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation,
in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus
has locus standi to make such a claim. In considering the same several
factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present.
The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary,
unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of
policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere
with a decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and
circumstances giving rise to a legitimate expectation, it would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
primarily be a question of fact. If these tests are satisfied and if the
court is satisfied that a case of legitimate expectation is made out then
the next question Would be whether failure to give an opportunity of
hearing before the decision affect such legitimate expectation is taken
has resulted in failure of' justice and whether on that ground the
decision should he quashed. If that be so then what should be the
relief is again a matter which depends on several factors.
35. We find in Attorney General for New South wales' case that the
entire case law on the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been
considered. We also find that on an elaborate an erudite discussion it
is held that the courts' jurisdiction to interfere is very much limited and
much less in granting any relief in a claim based purely on the ground
of 'legitimate expectation'. In Public Law and Politics edited by Carol
Harlow, we find an article by Gabriele Ganz in which the learned author
after examining the views expressed in the cases decided by eminent
judges to whom we have referred to above, concluded thus:
"The confusion and uncertainty at the heart of the concept stems from
its origin. It has grown from two separate roots, natural justice or
fairness and estoppel., but the stems have become entwined to such
an extent that it is impossible to disentangle them. This makes it that
it is very difficult to predict how the hybrid will develop in future.This
could be regarded as giving the concept a healthy flexibility, for the
intention behind it is being it has been fashioned to protect the
individual against administrative action which is against his interest.
On the other hand, the uncertainty of the concept has led to conflicting
decisions and conflicting interpretations in the same decision.
However, it is generally accepted and also clear that legitimate
expectation beings less than right operate in the field of public and not
private law and that to some extent such legitimate expectation ought
to be protected though not guaranteed.
36. Legitimate expectations may come in various forms and owe
their existence to different kind of circumstances and it is not possible
to give an exhaustive list in the context of vast and fast expansion of
the governmental activities. They shift and change so fast that the
start of our list would be obsolete before we reached the middle. By
and large they arise in cases of promotions which are in normal course
expected, though not guaranteed by way of a statutory right, in cases
of contracts, distribution of largest by the Government and in
somewhat similar situations. For instance in cases of discretionary
grant of licences, permits or the like, carries with it a reasonable
expectation, though not a legal right to renewal or non-revocation, but
to summarily disappoint that expectation may be seen as unfair
without the expectant person being heard. But there again the court
has to see whether it was done as a policy or in the public interest
either by way of G.O., rule or by way of a legislation. If that be so. a
decision denying a legitimate expectation based on such (,rounds does
not qualify for interference unless in a given case, the decision or
action taken amounts to an abuse of power. Therefore the limitation is
extremely confined and if the according of natural justice does not
condition the exercise of the power, the concept of legitimate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
expectation can have no role to play and the court must not usurp the
discretion of the public authority which is empowered to take the
decisions under law and the court is expected to apply and objective
standard which leaves to the decising authority the full range of choice
which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Even in a case
where the decision is left entirely to the discretion of the deciding
authority without any such legal bounds and if the decision is taken
fairly and objectively, the court will not interfere on the ground of
procedural fairness to a person whose interest based on legitimate
expectation might be affected. For instance if an authority who has full
discretion to grant a licence and if he prefers an existing licence holder
to a new applicant, the decision can not be interfered with on the
ground of legitimate expectation entertained by the new applicant
applying the principles of natural justice. It can therefore be seen that
legitimate expectation can at the most be one of the grounds which
may give rise to judicial review but the granting of relief is very much
limited. It would thus appear that there are stronger reasons as to why
the legitimate expectation should not be substantively protected than
the reasons as to why it should be protected. In other words such a
legal obligation exists whenever the case supporting the same in terms
of legal principles of different sorts, is stronger than the case against
it. As observed in Attornry General for New South Wales' case "To
strike down the exercise of administrative power solely on the ground
of avoiding the disappointment of the legitimate expectations of an
individual would be to set the courts adrift on a featureless sea of
pragmatism. Moreover, the notion of a legitimate expectation (falling
short of a legal right) is too nebulous to form a basis for invalidating
the exercise of power when its exercise otherwise accords with law." If
a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of
right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory unfair or based, gross
abuse of power or violation of principles of natural justice, the same
can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but
a claim biased on mere legitimate expectation without anything more
cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. It can be one
of the ground to consider but the court must lift the veil and see
whether the decision is violative of these principles warranting
interference. It depends very much on the facts and the recognised
general principles of administrative law applicable to such facts and
the concept of legitimate expectation which is the latest recruit to a
long list of concepts fashioned by the courts for the review of
administrative action, must be restricted to the general legal
limitations applicable and binding the manner of the future exercise of
administrative power in a particular case. It follows that the concept of
legitimate expectation is "not the key which unlocks the treasury of
natural justice and it ought not to unlock the gates which shuts the
court out of review on the merits," particularly when the element of
speculation and uncertainty is inherent in that very concept. As
cautioned in Attorney General for New South Wales' case the courts
should restrain themselves and restrict such claims duty to the legal
limitations. It is a well-meant caution. Otherwise a resourceful litigant
having vested interests in contracts. licences etc,. can successfully
indulge in getting welfare activities mandated by directive principles
thwarted to further his own interests. The caution, particularly in the
changing scenario, becomes all the more important."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
Considering the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matters of public interest, there can be no
obligation on the respondent - State to grant opportunity of
hearing once the Court is of the opinion that the said exercise
undertaken by the respondent State is for the benefit of
citizens/public at large. In line with the aforesaid ratio as laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court,
the impugned Notification is issued by the respondent No.1
exercising powers under Section 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Act in
the interest of the citizens of the Ahmedabad City considering
the traffic modalities during the peak hours.
10.1 It is also apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Narmada Bachao Andolan vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. , reported in (2000) 10 SCC
664. Paragraphs 232 and 233 of the said decision read thus:
"232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in
any manner utmost care has to be taken that the court does not
transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a
fairly clear demarcation of powers. The court has come down heavily
whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the court's
jurisdiction.
233. At the same time, in exercise of us enormous power the court
should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or
functions. The courts cannot run the Government nor can the
administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with
it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
role of the higher judiciary under the Constitution casts on it a great
obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the Constitution and
the rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their
judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness
their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has
been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the court
will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government
to act in a particular manner the court ought not to, without striking
down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law.
In other words the court itself is not above the law."
11. The traffic conditions in the year 2004 and 2023 are
incomparable as the traffic is 10 much higher than it was in the
year 2004. This Court is not inclined to sit in appeal over the
decision taken by the respondent No.1 under Section 33(1)(b)
and (c) of the Act in the interest of public at large to prevent
traffic, accidents and pollution. The respondent No.1 is an
expert in its domain and this Court would not substitute its own
views for a decision taken by an expert in the field.
Considering the interest of the petitioners also, there is no
restriction qua the petitioners to carry on their business in the
City except, plying heavy vehicles and private buses in the City
during 8:00 am to 10:00 pm. In view thereof, it is open for the
petitioners to continue their business 24X7.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the said restrictions by the
impugned Notification No.G/UPK/Traffic/4/2022 dated
08.01.2022 cannot be said to be violative of Article 301 of the
Constitution of India. Further, the said Notification is issued in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
the larger interest of public by the respondent No.1 and in view
thereof, the submissions advanced by the learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners be permitted
10 routes for the buses to ply, does not appeal to this Court.
The issuance of such directions at the instance of one entity
would resultantly have an effect of a mandate. No legal or
fundamental right of the petitioners infringed by the impugned
Notification wherein, the restrictions are only qua plying of the
private passenger buses; (i) weigh more than 7500 kg (ii) with
a seating capacity for 33 passengers or more and (iii) a
sleeping facility vehicles in the Ahmedabad City between 8:00
am to 10:00 pm. It is always open for the petitioners to ply the
buses in the unrestricted areas and in view thereof, the main
contention raised by the petitioners with respect to
infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioners itself
does not hold good.
13. Further, the submission of learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner that the impugned Notification creates two
classes between (i) goods trucks and private buses and; (ii)
state buses and private buses, also does not hold good
considering the fact that the petitioners herein are in business
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
of plying private buses inter-state and intra-state and the
buses run by the AMTS are 'stage carriage' taking lacs of
citizens from one area to another area within the City.
14. The petitioner is in receipt of 'contract carriage' permits
i.e. for carrying passengers from one City to another but, only
the buses of GSRTC which are authorized to carry individual
passengers from one City to another. The Notification
impugned imposes restrictions on the movement of medium
and heavy vehicles plied by the private bus operators. It is
always open for the petitioners to ply smaller vehicles like mini
buses to carry their passengers through mini buses at the
outskirts of the City and in view thereof, there is no restriction
to the enjoyment to fundamental rights of the petitioners to
carry on the business.
14.1 In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid action
undertaken by the respondent No.1 under Section 33(1)(b) and
(c) of the Bombay Police Act, would not result in violation of
the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on business under
Article 19(1)(g) and also Article 301 of the Constitution of India.
Further, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned Notification
No.G/UPK/Traffic/4/2022 dated 08.01.2022 issued by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/957/2022 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
respondent No.1 has uniform application qua the present
petitioners and similarly placed private bus owners and the
said Notification also cannot be said to be discriminatory
towards the petitioners herein.
15. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, no
case is made out to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the
present petition stands dismissed.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
