1985 JTR(SC) 240
1985 AIR(SC) 1651 ; 1985 CriLR 478 ; 1985 2 CurCC(SC) 682 ; 1985 2 Scale 72 ; 1985 3 SCC 711 ; 1985 Supp2 SCR 330 ; 1985 KHC 687
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, R.B. MISRA, J.
M/s. Krishna Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana, others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2890 of 1985,*, Writ Petns. Nos. 12895-96 of 1984 D/- 25-7-1985.*
AND
S. Kulwant Singh, another, Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana, others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. K. Mehta, Advocate for Appellant in C.A. No. 2890 of 1985, Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 12895-96 of 1984; Mr. M.K. Dua, Mr. P.N. Puri, Mr. Aman Vachhar, Advocates for the Petitioners, in W.P. Nos. 12895-96 of 1984, Mr. M. S. Gujaral, Sr. Advocate, Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocate with him for respondents in W.P. No. 12895-96 of 1984, Mr. Anil Dev Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. N. S. Behl, Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocates with him, for Respondents in C.A. No. 2890 of 1985.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.19(1)(g)
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.133(a), S.129(a), S.129
PUNJAB MOTOR VEHICLES RULES : R.10(2)(2)(d)
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, read with Section 133-A, empowers a State Government to establish a motor vehicles department and appoint officers to enforce the Act's provisions. The impugned Notification issued under Section 133-A added General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer possessing powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, invoking the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 as amended. The Constitution (Article 19(1)(g)) and the Motor Vehicles Act govern the challenge to this appointment and the validity of delegated police powers.
(B) Police powers under the Act, including search, seizure, and inspection, are reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to practise any profession under Article 19(1)(g), but must be reasonable in substance and procedure and entrusted only to unbiased officers. An officer directly responsible for running a transport business cannot fairly exercise investigative and enforcement powers against competitors without risking bias and conflict of interest.
Facts of the case:
The appellant company and petitioners are motor transport operators in Haryana subject to the Act. The Haryana Government, as owner of Haryana Roadways, amended the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules to authorise the General Manager of Haryana Roadways to exercise Deputy Superintendent of Police-level powers under the Act. The appointment was challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds of bias and violation of Article 19(1)(g).
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appointment of the General Manager, who is responsible for the administration and profitability of Haryana Roadways and competes with private operators, imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right and is contrary to the object and spirit of the Act. The officer's dual role creates a likelihood of bias, and there was no necessity to confer such powers given the availability of other independent officers.
Issues:
Whether appointing the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer with powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act is constitutionally valid and consistent with Article 19(1)(g).
Ratio Decidendi:
An officer directly responsible for the operation and profitability of a transport department cannot be entrusted with impartial enforcement powers against competitors, as the conflict of interest undermines the fairness and public confidence required for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g); hence, the appointment is void.
Result:
The impugned Notification is quashed, the appeal and writ petitions are allowed, and the General Manager of Haryana Roadways is not authorised to exercise Deputy Superintendent of Police powers under the Act.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, read with Section 133-A, empowers a State Government to establish a motor vehicles department and appoint officers to enforce the Act's provisions. The impugned Notification issued under Section 133-A added General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer possessing powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, invoking the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 as amended. The Constitution (Article 19(1)(g)) and the Motor Vehicles Act govern the challenge to this appointment and the validity of delegated police powers.
(B) Police powers under the Act, including search, seizure, and inspection, are reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to practise any profession under Article 19(1)(g), but must be reasonable in substance and procedure and entrusted only to unbiased officers. An officer directly responsible for running a transport business cannot fairly exercise investigative and enforcement powers against competitors without risking bias and conflict of interest.
Facts of the case:
The appellant company and petitioners are motor transport operators in Haryana subject to the Act. The Haryana Government, as owner of Haryana Roadways, amended the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules to authorise the General Manager of Haryana Roadways to exercise Deputy Superintendent of Police-level powers under the Act. The appointment was challenged as unconstitutional on the grounds of bias and violation of Article 19(1)(g).
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appointment of the General Manager, who is responsible for the administration and profitability of Haryana Roadways and competes with private operators, imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right and is contrary to the object and spirit of the Act. The officer's dual role creates a likelihood of bias, and there was no necessity to confer such powers given the availability of other independent officers.
Issues:
Whether appointing the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer with powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act is constitutionally valid and consistent with Article 19(1)(g).
Ratio Decidendi:
An officer directly responsible for the operation and profitability of a transport department cannot be entrusted with impartial enforcement powers against competitors, as the conflict of interest undermines the fairness and public confidence required for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g); hence, the appointment is void.
Result:
The impugned Notification is quashed, the appeal and writ petitions are allowed, and the General Manager of Haryana Roadways is not authorised to exercise Deputy Superintendent of Police powers under the Act.
AMAN VACHHER, ANIL DEV SINGH, M.K.Dua, M.S.GUJRAL, N.S.DAS BEHL, P.N.PURI, R.N.Poddar, S.K.MEHTA
Judgment
VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- In the above cases the short question which arises for consideration is whether the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways as an officer who can exercise the powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Government of Haryana under the Notification dated March 16, 1973 issued under Section 133-A of the Act is valid or not.
2. The appellant in the above appeal by special leave questioned the validity of the appointment of the General Manager of Haryana Roadways under the Notification, referred to above, as an officer entitled to exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act in Writ Petition No. 1770 of 1978 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the appellant has preferred the above, appeal. The petitioners in the above mentioned Writ Petitions have questioned the validity of the above-said Notification under Article 32 of the Constitution. Since the point involved in the Civil Appeal and in the Writ Petitions is common, we propose to dispose of all these cases by this common judgment.
3. The appellant in the Civil Appeal is a company carrying on the business of motor transport. Its motor vehicles operate within the State of Haryana also. The petitioners in the Writ Petitions are also carrying on the same kind of business in the State of Haryana. All the motor vehicles operators are required to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Non-compliance with many of those provisions would result in prosecution and those who are found guilty are liable to be punished. The Haryana Roadways is a department of the State of Haryana. It also carries on the business of providing passenger transport facilities in competition with the appellant and the petitioners herein. It owns a fleet of motor vehicles for the purpose of its business. The Haryana Roadways is also subject to, the various provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The General Manager of Haryana Roadways is principally responsible for the proper administration of the. Haryana Roadways.
4. Under Section 133-A of the Act the State Government may for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act establish a motor vehicles department and appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit. Section 129 of the Act provides that any police officer authorised in this behalf or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if he has reason to believe that any identification mark carried on a motor vehicle or any licence, permit, certificate of registration, certificate of insurance of other document produced to him by the driver or person in charge of a motor vehicle is a false document within the meaning of Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code, seize the mark or document and call upon the driver or owner of the vehicle to account for his possession of or the presence in the vehicle of such mark or document. Under Section 129-A of the Act any police officer authorised in this behalf or other person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, it he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions of section 22 or without the permit required by sub-section (1) of Section 42 or in contravention of any condition of such permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, seize and detain the vehicle, and for this purpose take or cause to be taken any steps he may consider proper for the temporary safe custody of the vehicle. On such seizure it is open to the officer concerned to lodge a prosecution before the magistrate competent to try it. There are several other powers which a police officer may exercise under the Act and the rules made thereunder against persons who are carrying on the business of providing motor transport facilities.
5. Rule 10.2 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (as in force in the State of Haryana) as it stood prior to March 16, 1973 read as follows :
"10.2. Classification of officers -
(1) There shall be four classes of the staff, namely, Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV.
(2) The officers included in each class and the police powers exercisable by them under the Act, shall be as noted below against each. The police powers exercisable by the officers of the Transport Department are in respect of Motor Vehicles offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 only :
Class I
xx xx xx
Class II
(a) Secretaries, Regional Transport Authorities Powers exercisable by Dy. Supdt. of Police.
(b) Extra Assistant Transport Controller (O) -do-
(c) Extra Assistant Transport Conroller (T) -do-
xx xx xx xx"
6. But by Notification dated March 16, 1973, referred to above, the Haryana Government (Illegible) the Transport Department in exercise of its powers under Section 133-A of the Act amended Rule 10.2 by adding clause (d) in the category of Class II Officers referred to in Rule 10.2 of the Pubjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, the relevant portion of which reads as follows :-
"2. In the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 after clause (c) under class II in sub-rule (2) of rule 10.2, the following clause (d) shall be added namely :-
(d) General Manager Haryan Roadways Powers excercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
7. After the issue of the above Notification, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways commenced to exercise the powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act.
8. We are concerned in these cases with the validity of the above Notification dated March 16, 1973 by which the General Manager, Haryana Roadways is empowered to exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act only.
9. The contention urged by the appellant and the petitioners in these cases is that the appointment of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, who is himself responsible for the proper management of the activities of the Haryana Roadways and its prosperity and profitability and who is carrying on business in competition, with other private operators as an officer who can exercise the powers of the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act is violative under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and it is otherwise contrary to the object and spirit of the Act. It is further urged that the General Manager, Haryana Roadways could not be able to discharge his functions satisfactorily in the interests of the general public since he being himself under a duty to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder in respect of the motor vehicles of the Haryana Roadways cannot be expected to discharge the functions of checking, inspection, search and seizure regarding the motor vehicles belonging to the Haryana Roadways and to take appropriate steps to prosecute the officers of his own department who are not complying with the provisions of the Act. In a given case it is likely that the General Manager himself may have to be prosecuted for not complying with law.
10. The powers of stopping the motor vehicles and the powers of inspection, search, seizure and detention exercised under the Act are serious restrictions on the fundamental right of the operators of motor vehicles guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. These powers can be considered as reasonable restrictions only when they are exercised properly in the interests of the general public. They should be reasonable both from the substantive as well as the procedural standpoint. Such powers should, therefore, be entrusted to a person who is expected to exercise them fairly and without bias. The General Manager of Haryana Roadways who is a rival in business to the private operators of motor vehicles in the State and is intimately connected with the running of motor vehicles cannot be expected to discharge his duties in a fair and reasonable manner. An unobstructed operation of the motor vehicles by private owners operating along the same route or routes would naturally affect the earnings of the Haryana Roadways. There is, therefore, every likelihood of his being over-zealous in discharging his duties of stopping a vehicle and in searching, seizing and detaining motor vehicles belonging to others and at the same time excessively lenient in the case of vehicles belonging to his own department. If in discharging his duties in the case of vehicles belonging to others he fails to give due regard to the interests of the owners thereof he would be violating their fundamental right to carry on business in a reasonable way. If he is too lenient in inspecting the vehicles belonging to his own department, the interests of the travelling public at large would be in peril. In both the cases there is a conflict between his duty on the one hand and his interest on the other. Moreover administration must be rooted in confidence and that confidence is destroyed when people begin to think that the officer concerned is biased. This is not a case which is governed by the rule of necessity. As it is, there are many other officers who are entrusted with the powers of the police officers under the Act. There was, therefore, no necessity to appoint the General Manager of Haryana Roadways also to exercise the said powers. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appointment of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways who is directly responsible for running its motor vehicles as one of the officers who can exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the private motor vehicles operators and is therefore violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We, however, make it clear that the appointment of other officers of the State Govt. is not bad even though the Government is the owner of the vehicles as their connection with the running of the vehicles is too remote. The appointment of the General Manager as an Officer who can exercise the powers of the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act is also not in the interests of the general public since the large number of motor vehicles owned by the Haryana Roadways would not be subject to inspection and checking by an independent agency. Can we expect a fair investigation by a police officer into a criminal case in which his own kith and kin are involved as the accused? The position is not different in this case. The Legislature could not have intended while enacting Section 133-A of the Act that a person who was himself directly responsible for the proper running of the motor vehicles according to law could be appointed as the inspecting and investigating officer by the State Government for the purpose of enforcing the Act.
11. Our view receives support from a decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Junta Motor Transport v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1970 All LJ 810 by which the appointment of Gazetted Officers, Station Superintendents, Traffic Superintendents and Assistant Traffic Inspectors of Uttar Pradesh Roadways as the prescribed authorities to enforce the Uttar Pradesh Motor Gadi (Yatra- Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 and the rules made thereunder was held to be void.
12. The appeal and the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned Notification dated March 16, 1973 called the Punjab Motor Vehicles (Haryana First Amendment) Rules, 1973 by which the General Manager, Haryana Roadways was conferred the powers exercisable by a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Act is held to be invalid and is, therefore, quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1985 SC 1651