http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HARMAN SINGH AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CULCUTTA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/1953

BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BENCH: MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN HASAN, GHULAM JAGANNADHADAS, B.

CITATION:  1954 AIR  190            1954 SCR  371  CITATOR INFO :  R          1970 SC 564  (192)  R          1989 SC2105  (7)

ACT:       Constitution  of  India,  arts.  14,   19(1)(g)-Issuing  permits  to smaller taxis and fixing lower tariff for  them-  Whether  infringes  fundamental  right  of  existing  Permit  holders to carry on occupation or to equal protection of the  laws-Right to carry on occupation Extent of the right.

HEADNOTE:     Since1940 taxis plying in the streets of Calcutta  were required to be not below 22 H. P. and not above 30 H. P. and rule  179of  the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules as  amended  in 1944 fixed a minimum charge of one rupee for the first  mile and  2 as. for every onc-sixth of each subsequent  mile.  in 1952 the Regional Transport Authority issued a  notification inviting applications for permits to ply small taxis of  not below 10 H. P. and not above 372 19  H.  P. and a proviso was added to rule 179 that  in  the case  of such small taxis the tariff shall be 8 as. for  the first  mile  and 2 as for every quarter of  each  subsequent mile.  The permit holders of the bigger taxis applied to the High  Court  under art. 226 of the Constitution for  a  writ restraining  the  Regional Transport Authority  from  giving effect  to  the notification and issuing  permits  to  small taxis,  on the ground that the notification infringed  their fundamental  rights guaranteed by art. 19(I)(g) and art.  14 of the Constitution :        Held,  (i) that the introduction of small taxis  and the  fixing  of  a  lower tariff for them  was  based  on  a rational  classification and there was no  contravention  of art.  14 of the Constitution; (ii) as the permit holders  of bigger  taxis  were  not prevented from  carryIng  on  their occupation and to ply their taxis,there was no  infringement of art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution,and a writ as  prayed for against the Regional Transport Authoritycould  not   be granted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Article  19(1)(g)  does  not guarantee  a  monopoly  to  a particular  individual  or  association  to  carry  on   any occupation and if other persons are also allowed to carry on the  same  occupation  and  an  element  of  competition  is introduced,  that does not, in the absence of bad  faith  on the  part of the authorities, amount to a violation  of  the fundamental right guaranteed under art. 19(1)(g).

JUDGMENT:   CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION  Civil Appeal  No.  112  of 1953. Appeal  under  article 132(I) of the Constitution  of  India from the judgment and Order dated the 9th January, 1953,  of the High Court of judicature at Calcutta (Himansu Kumar Bose J.) in Civil Revision No. 2754 of 1952. R.   Choudhry and A. K. Das Gupta for the appellants. M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (B.  Sen, with him) for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 1953.  November 24.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by      MAHAJAN  J.-This  appeal under article  132(I)  of  the Constitution of India is directed against a judgment of  the High  Court  of  Calcutta (H.  K. Bose  J.)  dated  the  9th January,  1953, dismissing an application under article  226 of the Constitution. The  facts  giving  rise  to the appeal are  these  :  By  a notification  dated 13th May, 1952, the  Regional  Transport Authority, Calcutta Region, invited applications 373 from persons who had licences for driving motor cabs, or who possessed  knowledge  of motor mechanism, for the  issue  of permits for small motor taxi cabs of not below 10 H. P.  and not  above  19  H. P. The  said  notification  also  invited representations against the issue of such permits.  A number of  associations  and persons including  the  Calcutta  Taxi Association  and  the Bengal Taxi  Association,  accordingly made representations objecting to the issue of such permits. These  objections  were  heard by  the  Regional  Transport, Authority on 5h July, 1952, and were ultimately rejected  on 21st  August,  1952,  and 48 permits for  small  taxis  were issued. Since the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year  1940  taxis  plying in the streets  of  Calcutta  were required to be of not below 22 H. P. and not above 30 H.  P. Rule  179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules prescribed  the tariff for all such taxis.  This rule was in these terms :- "A  single tariff shall be charged at the rate of two  annas for every quarter of a mile.  Minimum charge shall be  eight annas.   The tariff shall be in force in and day within  the following boundaries......"      In  the year 1944 in view of the rise in the prices  of motor  parts,  tyres, accessories,  oil  lubricants,  petrol etc.,  rule  179 was amended and the amended rule  reads  as follows :-      "A.  minimum charge of one rupee for the first mile  or part  thereof  and  annas two for every  one-sixth  of  each subsequent  mile.   Waiting charges Rs. 1-140  per  hour  or annas 2 for every 4 minutes.  All charges to be shown on the meter.  Cabs returning empty to be paid annas 4 per mile up, to the boundary."    This increased rate of tariff was maintained by A further notification issued on 13th January, 1951    After the issue of the notification in May, 1952 inviting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

applications  for  permits  to ply small  taxis,  a  further notification  was issued on the’ 7th June, : 1952,  amending rule  179.  of  the  Bengal  Motor  Vehicles    Rules.   This notification was in these terms :- "In  exercise  of die power conferred by section 51  of  the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Governor is pleased 2--93 S. C. India/59 374 to make the following amendment to the rule published  under the  notification  of the Government of Bengal in  the  Home (Transport) Department No. 9354-T dated the 28th  September, 1946, as subsequently amended, namely :- To the said rule add the following proviso:-       "Provided that in the case of small motor cabs of  not exceeding  19  H. P., but not below 10  H.   P.,  registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in the city of  Calcutta or.  in  the  district of 24 Parganas  the  tariff  on  each occasion  of  hiring  shall for a period of  8  months  with effect  from 1st May, 1952, be annas 8 for the 1st  mile  or part  of  a  mile  and annas 2 for  every  quarter  of  each subsequent mile."     The result of this notification was that the tariff  for small  taxis  was fixed at the rate of eight annas  for  the first  mile or part of a mile and 2 annas for every  quarter of  each subsequent mile, while the tariff for  large  taxis remained  as  before, namely, one rupee for the  first  mile ;and  2 annas for every one-sixth of each  subsequent  mile. This  disparity between the tariffs of small and  big  taxis introduced  an element of competition among the taxi  owners and  created  an  apprehension in the minds  of  large  taxi owners that their occupation would be seriously affected  by the  introduction  of small taxis plying on  cheaper  fares. The  appellants  therefore on 21st October,  1952,  filed  a petition in the High Court ,of Calcutta under article 226 of the  Constitution against the Regional  Transport  Authority and the 48 permit holders praying for a writ of  prohibition restraining  the  Regional Transport Authority  from  giving effect  to the notification of the 7th June, 1952, and  from permitting or authorising small taxis to ply in the  streets of  Calcutta  on  the  allegation  that  this   notification violated  the  fundamental rights guaranteed to  them  under articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. The High Court of Calcutta by its order dated 24th  October, 1952, granted a rule and passed an ad interim order  against the  respondents  in terms of the prayer in  the  appellants petition.   The rule then came up for hearing before  H.  K. Bosc J. and by his judgment 375 under  appeal  dated 9th January, 1953,  the  learned  Judge dismissed  the  petition with costs.  It was held  that  the circumstance  that  the notification dated 7th  June,  1952, might or might not have the effect of affecting economically the business of taxi cab owners would not justify the  court in holding that the notification was in violation of article 19(I)(g)  of  the Constitution.  It was  further  held  that there  was no violation of the fundamental right  guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution because the fixation of tariff  regarding  the  two classes of taxis  was  based  on rational  classification.   The  learned judge  was  of  the opinion that small taxis had been introduced for the benefit of the general public and that there was no unreasonableness in  classifying the tariff in the manner it had  been  done. The  learned  Judge, however, granted  a  certificate  under article 132(I) of the Constitution. Mr. Choudhry, who argued the appeal before us reiterated the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

contentions  that had been raised before the High Court  and laid  great  emphasis on the point found in. his  favour  by Bose J. that it was not open to the owners of large taxis to charge  tariff at a rate lower than the  prescribed  minimum and  contended that in that situation the occupation of  the proprietors of large taxis was bound to come to a standstill and  as such the notification amounted to a breach of  their fundamental right guaranteed under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.   In  our  opinion, none  of  the  contentions raised  by the learned counsel have any substance.   Without in  any  way  finally  deciding the  question  of  the  true construction of rule 179 of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, read with the provisions of section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, because it does not directly arise here, as at  present advised,  we cannot affirm the view of Bose J., that  it  is not open to the large taxi owners to charge tariff at a rate lower than that pies cribed if they so desire.  The  learned Attorney  General  who appeared for the  Regional  Transport Authority shared our tentative view on this point, though he was  not  prepared to concede the point in  the  absence  of specific  instructions.  The learned Advocate  General  took more  or less the same line in his argument 376 before the High Court.  Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act enjoins  that the owner of a motor vehicle shall not use  or permit  the use of the vehicle save in accordance  with  the conditions  of a permit.  The form of the permit in  item  8 mentions the minimum fare that can be charged in respect  of a  vehicle.   On these provisions the  learned  judge  below reached the conclusion that there was no option left in  the owner  of  a  vehicle  to  charge  tariff  lower  than   the prescribed minimum.  Rule 179, however, which prescribes the minimum  tariff for the different classes of taxis does  not prohibit  the charge of a rate below the prescribed  minimum if the taxi owner so wishes.  All that it enjoins is that  a tariff  higher than the fixed minimum cannot be charged  and that  the hirer of a taxi on demand is bound to pay at  that rate.   In  the  absence of a clear provision  in  the  rule prohibiting  the  charge  of  tariff  below  the  prescribed minimum,  we arc not satisfied that the construction  placed on  these, provisions by Bose J. is correct.  Be that as  it may, the rule prescribing a minimum rate of, one rupee in respect of big taxi cabs by notifications issued in 1944 and 1951 is not  in challenge in these proceedings.  If that rule is  an unreasonable restriction on the occupation of large taxi cab owners  and  infringes the fundamental  right  contained  in article  19(I)(g) of the Constitution., it was open to  them to  challenge, the wires of that rule ; but that not  having been done, that question does not concern us here. The  only point for consideration in the appeal  is  whether the  issue of licences to small taxi cabs between 10 and  19 H.P.  to ply in the streets of Calcutta and the fixation  of lower  rates  of tariff for this class of  taxis  than  that prescribed  for  taxis between 22 and 30 H.P.  violates  the fundamental rights of the appcllants who are owners of  taxi cabs between 22 and 30 H.P.; under articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.  In our judgment, this question can  be answered  only  in the negative.  It  has  been  repeatedly. pointed out by this court that in construing article 14  the courts  should not adopt a doctrinaire approach which  might well choke all beneficial legislation and that legislation 377 which is based on a rational classification is  permissible. A  law  applying to a class is constitutional  if  there  is

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

sufficient  basis  or  reason for it.   In  other  words,  a statutory  discrimination cannot be set aside as the  denial of  equal protection of the laws if any state of  facts  may reasonably  be conceived to justify it. It is clear that  it is in the interests and for the benefit of a section of  the public  that  small taxis have been introduced  and  cheaper rates have been fixed having regard to the size, horse power and  expenses ,of running such cars.  We are unable  to  see any  unreasonableness  in this classification  or  any  dis- criminadon  which infringes the provisions of article 14  of the   Constitution.    The  contention  of   Mr.   Choudhry, therefore, that     the introduction of smaller taxis  at lesser tariffrates  contravenes    article   14    of    the Constitution cannot be upheld. The  next contention  of Mr. Choudhry that the  introduction of small taxis in the streets of Calcutta will bring about a total  stoppage of the existing motor taxi  cab  business of large  taxi owners in a commercial  sense and would thus  be an  infringement of the fundamental right  guaranteed  under article  19  (1) (g) of the Constitution  is  again  without force Article 19 (1) (g) declares that all citizens have the right   to  practice  any  profession,  to  carry   on   any occupation,  trade  or business.  Nobody has denied  to  the appellants the tight to carry on their own occupation and to ply their taxis.  This article does not guarantee a monopoly to  a particular individual or association to carry  on  any occupation  and if other petsons are also allowed the  right to   carry  on  the  same  occupation  and  an  element   of competition is introduced in the business, that does not, in the absence of any bad faith on the part of the  authorities amount  to a violation of the fundamental  right  guaranteed under  article  19(I) (g) of the  Constitution.   Under  the Motor  Vehicles Act it is in the discretion of the  Regional Transport  Authority to issue permits at different rates  of tariff  to  different  classes of  vehicles  plying  in  the streets  of  Calcutta and if that  power is exercised  in  a bona  fide  er by the Regional Transport Authority  for  the benefit of the citizens  378 of  Calcutta, then the mere circumstance that ’by  grant  of licence  at different tariff rates to holders  of  different taxis and different classes of vehicles some of the existing licence  holders  are affected cannot bring the  case  under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. For the reasons ’given above this appeal has no, merits  and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.                                    Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: Sukumar Ghose. Agent for respondents Nos.  I & 2: P. K. Bose.