http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: HARI OM GAUTAM.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MATHURA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/03/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1339            1987 SCR  (2) 714  1987 SCC  (2) 397        JT 1987 (1)   795  1987 SCALE  (1)622

ACT:     Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939, Sections 68(2)(r), 76 and  91 read  with Rule 93 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles  Rules,  1940, scope  of--Whether the District Magistrate has the power  to appoint any area as a bus stand/ halting places and  whether the Town Area Committee has the power to levy fees, for  the use  of the area so fixed as Bus stand, from the bus  opera- tors.

HEADNOTE:     Chapter  VI  of  the Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939  contain provisions  relating  to "control  of  transport  vehicles". Section 68 confers the power on the State Government to make rules  for  the purpose of the said chapter. Clause  (r)  of sub-section  (2) of section 68 of the Act specifically  con- fers on the State Government without prejudice to the gener- ally of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of section 68 of the Act the power to frame rules regarding  "prohibit- ing the picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified places or in specified areas or  at  places other than duly notified  stands  or  halting places and requiring the driver of a stage carriage to  stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when so required by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the  vehicle at a notified halting place." Section 76 empowers the  State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State  Government  to determine parking places  and  halting stations. Clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act  confers the power on the State Government  specifically to  make rules regarding the maintenance and  management  of parking places and stands and the fees, if any, which may be charged  for their use. Rule 93 of the Uttar  Pradesh  Motor Vehicles  Rules,  1940  similarly  authorises  the  District Magistrate to specify places within the limits of any munic- ipality,  notified area, town area or cantonment  or  within such other limits as he may define where alone public  serv- ice  vehicles  or any specified class or classes  of  public service vehicles and/or goods vehicles may stand indefinite- ly or for such period as may be specified or public  service vehicles  may stop for a longer time than is  necessary  for the taking up and setting down of passengers.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

715     The  District  Magistrate, Mathura by  his  order  dated 22.5.1986  declared and determined plot Nos. 701 and 702  in the Town Area, Baldev (Mathura) as a bus stand/halting place of Baldev, where the stage carriages were directed to  stand for the purpose of allowing the passengers of Baldev to  get into and to get down from the stage carriages.  Accordingly, the  Town Area Committee gave a contract to a  private  con- tractor  to  collect the necessary fees payable by  the  bus operators  for making use of the area in question which  was within its jurisdiction for stopping their buses in  accord- ance  with the order passed by the District Magistrate.  The appellant,  a  person  providing transport  service  in  the District of Mathura, challenged the said order dated May 22, 1986 and the order of the Town Area Committee the levy  fees by  filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 501 of 1986 before  the High Court of Allahabad. The Writ Petition was dismissed  by the  High  Court on 8.9.1986. Hence the  appeal  by  special leave. Allowing the appeal. the Court,     HELD:  Rule 93 of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,  1940  only authorises  the District Magistrate to exercise  the  powers under  Section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939  which  is confined to the question of determination of parking  places and  halting  places which are not the same  as  bus  stands which can only be notified by the Regional Transport Author- ity under section 68(2)(r) of the Act. [721B]     In  the  instant case no order has been  passed  by  the Regional Transport Authority, Mathura to determine the  area in  question  as  a bus stand and  the  District  Megistrate cannot  be  equated with the  Regional  Transport  Authority constituted  under  the  Act.  Therefore,  the  order  dated 22.5.1986  passed  by the District Magistrate and  also  the letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer  of Town  Area Committee, Baldev to the President of  the  Union requiring  the bus operators to stop their buses at the  bus stand  and to start from there and to permit the  passengers to get into and to get out of their buses at that bus  stand is not in order. [721C-E]     T.P.  Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority,  Tan/ore, [1953]  SCR 290; Municipal Board, Puskar v. State  Transport Authority,  Rajasthan and Ors., [1903] Supp. 2 SCR 373;  and Municipal  Council,  Bhopal v.  Sindhi  Sahiti  Multipurpose Transport  Co-op.  Society Ltd. & Anr.. [1974]  1  SCR  274, followed.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APFELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  687  of 1987. 716     From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.1986 of the  Alla- habad High Court in C.W.P. No. 501 of 1986.     Yogeshwar  Prasad, Vishal Jeet, S.R. Srivastava and  Ms. Rachna Gupta for the Appellant. S. Markandeya for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     VENKATARAMIAH,  J. The appellant is a  person  providing transport service in the District of Mathura. He  questioned the  validity of the Order dated May 22, 1986 passed by  the District Magistrate, Mathura declaring Plot Nos. 701 and 702 in  the Town Area, Baldev (Mathura) as a  bus  stand/halting place of Baldev, where the stage carriages were directed  to stand  for the purpose of allowing the passengers of  Baldev

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

to  get into and to get down from the stage carriages  in  a writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 501  of 1986 filed before the High Court of Allahabad under  Article 226  of  the Constitution of India. That petition  was  dis- missed  by the High Court on September 8, 1986. This  appeal by  special leave is filed against the said decision of  the High Court.     The  case of the appellant was that the District  Magis- trate had no power to appoint any area as a bus stand  under section  76  of the Motor Vehicles  Act,  1939  (hereinafter referred  to as ’the Act’) under which he purported to  pass the impugned order. According to the appellant the power  to fix  any  area  as a bus stand was vested  in  the  Regional Transport  Authority having jurisdiction over the  area  and not  in the District Magistrate. The High Court was  of  the opinion that section 76 of the Act conferred wide powers  on the  District  Magistrate  ’to fix the places  for  the  bus stand/halting  place’. It was further of the view  that  the place where the appellant and other bus operators were asked to  stop their buses was only a halting place and hence  the order made under section 76 of the Act was unassailable.  It further  observed  that  since the impugned  order  did  not specifically  state that the bus operators could  allow  the passengers to get down and pick up the passengers, it  could not be construed as an order fixing the area as a bus stand. It  should be stated at this stage that after  the  impugned order was passed the Town Area Committee gave a contract  to a private contractor to collect that fees payable by the bus operators  for making use of the area in question which  was within its jurisdiction for stopping their buses in  accord- ance with the order passed by the 717 District  Magistrate. After the Writ Petition was  filed  in the High Court. the appellant had obtained an order of  stay preventing the Town Area Committee from collecting the fees. Immediately  after  the  Writ Petition  was  dismissed,  the Executive Officer of the Town Area Committee, Baldev (Mathu- ra)  wrote  a letter on 10.10.1986 to the President  of  the Mathura-Sadabad-Manikpur-Eta Motor Operators Union,  Mathura requiring  all the bus operators to stop their buses at  the bus stand fixed by the District Magistrate. The letter reads thus:               "President--Mathura-Sadabad-Manikpur-Eta               Motor Operators Union Mathura.               Letter No. 192/TAB/86               Dated: 10.10.86                    Subject:  Civil Miscellaneous Writ  Peti-               tion No. 501/86                              Shri  Hari  Om  Gautam   Versus               District Magis-                              trate, Mathura.               Sir,                        The aforesaid Writ Petition which was               filed  against  the order of  District  Magis-               trate,  Mathura dated 22.5-1986 declaring  the               old  bus  stand of T.A.  Baldev  (Mathura)  as               authorised  Bus stand/Halting place, has  been               dismissed  by High Court, Allahabad on  8.9.86               and  the  stay order concerned has  also  been               cancelled.  Now the order of  District  Magis-               trate  dated  22.5.86  has  become   effective               again.  As a result of which all the buses  of               the union are bound to stop and start from the               authorised  Bus stand/Halting place of  Baldev               allowing the passengers to get in and get down

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             from  the  bus and for booking  at  this  very               stand and to pay standcommission to T.A.                                                      Faithfully,                                                         Sd/-8/10                                                        illegible                                                Executive               Officer                                                           (Seal)                                             Town  Area  Com-               mittee,                                                Baldev,               Mathura." 718     The relevant provisions of the Act which govern the case are  these.  Section 68, which is in Chapter IV of  the  Act containing the provisions relating to ’control of  transport vehicles’ confers the power on the State Government to  make rules  for  the purpose of the said chapter. Clause  (r)  of sub-section  (2) of section 68 of the Act specifically  con- fers on the State Government without prejudice to the gener- ality  of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of  sec- tion  68  of the Act the power to frame rules  regarding  or ’prohibiting the picking up or setting down of passengers by stage or contract carriages at specified places or in speci- fied  areas or at places other than duly notified stands  or halting places and requiring the driver of a stage  carriage to stop and remain stationary for a reasonable time when  so required by a passenger desiring to board or alight from the vehicle at a notified halting place.’ Section 76 of the  Act reads thus:               "76. Parking places  and halting stations--The               State  Government or any authority  authorised               in this behalf by the State Government may, in               consultation  with the local authority  having               jurisdiction in the area concerned,  determine               places  at  which  motor  vehicles  may  stand               either indefinitely or for a specified  period               of time, and may determine the places at which               public service vehicles may stop for a  longer               time  than is necessary for the taking up  and               setting down of passengers."     Section  91 of the Act, which is in Chapter  VI  dealing with  ’control of traffic’, confers the power on  the  State Government  to make rules for the purpose of  carrying  into effect  the  provisions of Chapter VI. Clause  (e)  of  sub- section  (2) of section 91 of the Act confers the  power  on the  State Government specifically to make  rules  regarding the maintenance and management of parking places and  stands and  the fees, if any, which may be charged for  their  use. Section 76 is also in Chapter VI.     The  first  question which arises for  consideration  is whether  the area in which the bus operators were  asked  to stop their buses is a bus stand or a halting place. The next question  is whether, if the said area is a bus  stand,  the District  Magistrate  had  the power to  pass  the  impugned order. It is not disputed before us that the District Magis- trate  had  passed the impugned order in question  with  the object of establishing a bus stand in the area in  question. That appears to be so from the order passed by the  District Magistrate  and the letter dated 10.10.1986 written  by  the Executive Officer of Baldev Town Area 719 Committee.  We shall proceed on the basis that the  District Magistrate  fixed  the area as a bus  stand.  Regarding  the authority  which  had the power to notify an area as  a  bus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

stand, there are at least three decisions of this Court.  In T.P.  Ibrahim  v.  Regional  Transport  Authority,  Tanjore, [1953] S.C.R. 290 this Court took the view that the  expres- sion  ’duly notified stand’ in section 68(2) (r) of the  Act meant  a stand duly notified by the Transport Authority  and not a stand notified by the municipality within whose juris- diction  the  area was situated. This Court  held  that  the fixing  and alteration of bus stands was not a purpose  for- eign  to the ’control of transport vehicles’ which was  gov- erned  by Chapter IV of the Act and, therefore, rules  could be framed by the State Government regarding the said subject under  section 68(2)(r) of the Act. At page 297 of  the  Re- ports this Court has observed thus: "The expression ’duly notified stands’ is not defined in the Act,  but it is reasonable to presume that a  duly  notified stand must be one which is notified by the Transport Author- ity and by none other."     It  accordingly  affirmed  the view of  the  High  Court against  whose judgment the said appeal had been filed  that section 76 of the Act which contained the provision relating to parking places and halting places had no application to a permanent bus stand which was a sort of radiating centre  of all  the bus traffic in the town. A similar  question  arose for  consideration  in  Municipal Board,  Pushkar  v.  State Transport  Authority,  Rajasthan and Ors.,  [1963]  Supp.  2 S.C.R.  373. Following the decision in T.B.  Ibrahim’s  case (supra) this Court held in this case that section 76 of  the Act  had nothing to do with the fixation or alteration of  a bus stand and the power to issue a notification fixing a bus stand was implied in section 68(2)(r) of the Act. It further held that the power under section 68(2)(r) of the Act  could be exercised only by the Regional Transport Authority having jurisdiction  over the area and therefore, the order  passed under that provision was open to revision under section 64-A by  the  State Transport Authority. The last case  to  which reference  has  to be made is Municipal Council,  Bhopal  v. Sindhi  Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-op. Society Ltd.  & Anr.,  [1974] 1 S.C.R. 274 where the two decisions  referred to  above  were applied for purposes of  deciding  the  said case.  The  facts  of this case were  these.  The  Municipal Council of Bhopal had made bye-laws under the provisions  of section 358(7)(f) and (m) read with section 349 (ii) of  the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Bye-law 2  provided that no person incharge of a motor-bus plying for hire shall for 720 the purpose of taking up or setting down of passengers, park or stop his bus anywhere within the limits of the municipal- ity  except at the Municipal Bus Stand. The  other  bye-laws provided  for a levy of a fee of Re. 1 for every 8 hours  or part thereof in respect of the use of the bus stand by  such buses  and  for the issue of a permit on such  payment.  The respondent  in that case filed a writ petition in  the  High Court  of Madhya Pradesh challenging the said bye-laws.  The High Court held that bye-law l(c), which defined the expres- sion ’Municipal Bus Stand’ and bye-law 2 were valid but held bye-laws  3 to 7 which provided for the payment of  fee  and the’  giving of permit etc., as invalid and  restrained  the Municipal  Council from giving effect to those  bye-laws  in any manner. In that case this Court affirmed the decision of the High Court holding that the power to regulate or prohib- it the use of municipal land as a halting place of  vehicles could  not  be  used to compel people to use  such  land  as halting place. Such a power should be given specifically  by the  statute and that the power to compel persons in  charge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

of  motor buses to stop only at certain places for the  pur- pose  of taking up or setting down passengers was  a  matter which relating to motor traffic and that there was a specif- ic  provision in section 68(2)(r) of the Act for  that  pur- pose.  Accordingly this Court held that the  bye-laws  which compelled persons in charge of motor buses to use the Munic- ipal  Bus Stand could not be passed by the Municipality.  In that  case  also the District Magistrate  had  declared  the Bhopal  Municipal  Bus Stand as a bus stand.  The  Municipal Council contended before this Court that the District Magis- trate  had  been authorised by the  State  Government  under section 76 of the Act to pass an order fixing the  Municipal Bus Stand as a bus stand for purposes of the Act.  Rejecting the said contention this Court held that the District Magis- trate  could  not exercise the power of fixing a  bus  stand under  section  76 of the Act and that could  be  done  only under  section  68(2)(r) of the Act. The Court  further  ob- served that while the Municipal Corporation had no power  to compel  persons plying motor buses for hire to use only  the Municipal Bus Stand for the purpose of taking up and setting down passengers, there can be no objection to its  providing a  bus stand for anybody who chooses to use  it  voluntarily and to such person being required to pay for such use.     In  the instant case reliance is placed by  the  learned counsel for the Town Area Committee of Baldev on rule 93  of the  U.P.  Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 which  authorises  the District  Magistrate to specify places within the limits  of any municipality, notified area, town area or cantonment  or within such other limits as he may define where alone public service vehicles or any specified class or classes of public 721 service vehicles and/or goods vehicles may stand indefinite- ly or for such period as may be specified or public  service vehicles  may stop for a longer time than is  necessary  for the  taking  up and setting down of passengers.  We  do  not think that the Town Area Committee can derive any assistance from  this rule. It only authorises the District  Magistrate to exercise the powers under section 76 of the Act which  is confined to the question of determination of parking  places and  halting  places which are not the same  as  bus  stands which can only be notified by the Regional Transport Author- ity as held by this Court in T.B. Ibrahim’s case (supra). It is  not disputed that in the instant case no order has  been passed  by  the  Regional Transport  Authority,  Mathura  to determine  the area in question as a bus stand and the  Dis- trict Magistrate cannot be equated with the Regional  Trans- port  Authority  constituted under the Act. The  High  Court was,  therefore,  in error in upholding the  impugned  order passed by the District Magistrate. We, therefore, set  aside the  judgment  of the High Court and quash the  order  dated 22.5.1986  passed by the District Magistrate. We also  quash the letter dated 10.10.1986 written by the Executive Officer of Town Area Committee, Baldev to the President of the Union requiring  the bus operators to stop their buses at the  bus stand  and to start from there and to permit the  passengers to get into and to get out of their buses at that bus stand. It  is  open  to the Regional Transport  Authority  to  take action  immediately for determining any convenient place  or places  within  the Town Area of Baldev (Mathura) as  a  bus stand.     The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. S.R.                                                  Appeal allowed. 722

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7