# Hannan Si1igh and Othera v. Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta, and Othera. MahajanJ

- **Citation:** [1954] 1 S.C.R. 371
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953-01-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1951
- **Bench:** PATANJALI SAsTm C. J, Mehr Chand Mahajan, S. R. Das, Ghulam Hasan, Jagannadhadas
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hannan-si1igh-and-othera-v-regional-transport-authority-calcutta-and-othera-271
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Oonstitiition of India, arts. 14, 19(1)(g)-Issiiing 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 ocwpationExtent of the right.
Since 1940 taxis plying in the streets of Calcutta were
required to be not below 22 H.P. and not above 30 H. P. and
rule 1 79 oi 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 one-sixth of each subsequent mile. In 1952 the Regional
Transport Authority issued a notification invitiug applications for
permits to· ply small taxis of not below 10 H.P. and not above
Bose J.
1953
Nov. 24.
1963
Hannan Si1igh
and Othera
v.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Calcutta,
and Othera.
MahajanJ.
372
SUPiiEME COURT REPOR'l'S
[1954]
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 A utho1:ity from giving effect to the notification and issuing permits to
•mall taxis, on the ground that the notification infringed their
fundamental rights guaranteed by art. l9(1)(g) and art. 14 of the
Constitution :
Held, (i) that the introduction of small taxis and the lixing o!
a lower tariff for them was based on a rational clA.ssification and
there was no contravention o! 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 Authority could not be
granted.
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(l)(g).
C1v1L APPELLA'l'E
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 112 of 1953.
Appeal under article 132(1) 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. Chaudhry and A. K. Das Gupta for the appellants.
M. 0. 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(1) 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 Transpor.t Authority, Calcutta Region, invited· applications
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 5th 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 n

## Text

.,
>
f
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME cotJRT REPORTS
371
further rights they may have against the.Nawab or
his estate.
1953
Lala Durga
(4) After this has beenldone, the Custodian, U. P.,
Pra•ad
will be at liberty to / withdraw the balance of the
and Another
Rs. 62,000.
v.
. .
.
Lala Deep Chand
Except for these mod1ficat10ns, the decree stands
and Others.
and the rest of the appeal is dismissed.
The modifications we have made here do not affect
the plaintiff's rights under the decree except to his
advantage. As-against him, the appellants have
failed.
We accordingly direct that the appellants pay
the plaintiff the costs of this appeal.
There is an application for amendment of the High
Court's qecree.
This will be disposed of by the
High Court.
Decree of High Oourt modified.
Agent for the appellant: B. P. Maheshwari.
Agent for respondent No. 1: N. 0. Jain.
Agent for the Custodian of Evacuee Property, U.P.:
O. P. Lal.
Appeal dismissed.
HARMAN SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORT. AUTHORITY,
CALCUTTA, AND OTHERS.
[PATANJALI SAsTm C. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]
Oonstitiition of India, arts. 14, 19(1)(g)-Issiiing 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 ocwpationExtent of the right.
Since 1940 taxis plying in the streets of Calcutta were
required to be not below 22 H.P. and not above 30 H. P. and
rule 1 79 oi 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 one-sixth of each subsequent mile. In 1952 the Regional
Transport Authority issued a notification invitiug applications for
permits to· ply small taxis of not below 10 H.P. and not above
Bose J.
1953
Nov. 24.
1963
Hannan Si1igh
and Othera
v.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Calcutta,
and Othera.
MahajanJ.
372
SUPiiEME COURT REPOR'l'S
[1954]
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 A utho1:ity from giving effect to the notification and issuing permits to
•mall taxis, on the ground that the notification infringed their
fundamental rights guaranteed by art. l9(1)(g) and art. 14 of the
Constitution :
Held, (i) that the introduction of small taxis and the lixing o!
a lower tariff for them was based on a rational clA.ssification and
there was no contravention o! 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 Authority could not be
granted.
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(l)(g).
C1v1L APPELLA'l'E
JURISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 112 of 1953.
Appeal under article 132(1) 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. Chaudhry and A. K. Das Gupta for the appellants.
M. 0. 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(1) 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 Transpor.t Authority, Calcutta Region, invited· applications
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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 5th 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 night
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 folloJVS :--
" 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 Re. 1-14-0
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 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 the power confefretl by section 51
of the Motor Vehicles 1\.ct1 19391 the Governor is pleaseq
19/JS
Harman Singh
and Othe'l's
v.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Calcutta,
' and Others.
MahaJanJ.
'
1953
Harnian Singh
and Others
v.·
Regional
T'l"ansport
A.u'thority:
Calcutta,
and Oth-ers.
MahaJanJ.
•
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954]
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 rnle add the following proviso :-
"Provided that in t.he 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 anna.s 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 smalf and
big taxis introduced an element of competition among
the taxi owners and created an apprehension in the
minds of!arge 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(l)(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 ill
the appellant'~ petition. The rule then came up for
)learing before JI. K. l3ose J. ::\nd b;Y his judgment
•
t·
'
(
•
l
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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(1 )(g) of the Con:
stitution. 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(1) of the Constitution.
Mr. Choudhry, who argued the appeal before us,
reiterated the 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. prescribed 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
also took more or less the E\ame line in his argument
?O
1953
Harman Singh
and Others
v.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Calcutta,
and Others.
Mahajan J.
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1954)
us3
before the High Court. Section 42 of the Motor VehiH
S . h cles Act eni'oins that the owner of a motor vehicle shall
arman
ing
.
.
and oi1wrs
not use or permit the use of the vehwle save in
v.
accordance with the conditions of a permit. The form
Regwnal
of the .permit in item 8 mentions the minimum fare
Tvanspa't
that can be charged in respect of a vehicle.
On these
Authority,
.
h 1
d J d
b 1
h d
oalcuua,
provisions t e earne • u ge
e ow reac e
the conand Others.
clusion that there was no option left in the owner of a
vehicle to charge tariff lower than the prescribed miniMahajan .1.
mum. 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 the prescribed minimum, we are
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
respec~ of ~ig taxi cabs by notifications issued in
1944 and 1951 is not in challenge in these proceedings.
~f that rule is an unreasonable restriction -on
the ocdupation of large taxi cab owners and infringes
the fu~damental right contained in article 19(l)(g)
of the, Constitution, it was open to them to challenge
the vir~s of that rule; but that not having been done,
that qfestion 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 tb'.e 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 appellants
who are owners of taxi cabs between 22 and 30 H.P.,
under articles 14 and 19 (l)(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
J
S.O.R.
SUPREME couwr REPORTS
377
which is based on a rational classification is permis1953
sible. A law applying to a class is constitutional if H . --«. h
h
.
ffi .
b. .
.c
•
I
h
arman omg
t ere IS su cient asrn or reason 1or it.
n ot er
and Others
words, a statutory discrimination cannot be set aside
v.
as the denial of equal protection of the laws if any
Regional
state of facts may. reasonably be conceived to justify
7'ransport
it. It is clear that it is in the interests and for the
Authority,
Oalcutta,
benefit of a section of the public that small taxis have
·and Others.
been introduced and cheaper rates have been fixed
having regard to the size, horse power and expenses
Mahajan J.
of running such cars. We are unable to see any
unreasonableness in this classification or any discrimination which infringes the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution.
The contention of
Mr. Choudhry, therefore, that the introduction of
smaller taxis at lesser tariff rates 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 Caleutta
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 (l)(g) of the
Constitution is again without force.
Article 19 (l)(g)
declares that all citizens have the right to practise
any profossion, to carry on any occupation, trade or
business. Nobody has denied to the appellants the
right 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 persons 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 art.icle 19(l)(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 manner by the Regional Transport Authority for the benefit of the citizens
1953
Harman Singh
and Others
v.
Regional
Transport
Authority,
Oalcittta,
and Others.·
1953
Nov. 24.
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[i954j
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 disrnissed.
Agent for the appellant : Sulcurnar Ghose.
Agent for respondents Nos. 1 & 2: P. K. Bose.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
SHAIKH SERAJUDDIN BATLEY.
UNION OF INDIA : INTERVENER
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN,
S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]
Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order,
1947, Arts. 8(2), 9-Rent payable by Province of Bengal before 15th
A·ugiist, 1947-Pitrpose of lease exclusive purpose of West Bengal
-Liability of West Be,ngal-" Financial obligations," interprCtation
of-Object of Art. 9.
The liability to pay rent under a lease does not come within
the expression
11 financial obligations" in article 9 of the Indian
Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947.
The Province of Bengal took certain premises'on lease on the
6th February, 1947, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 1,800 and
the purposes for which the lease was entered into were, after 15th
August, 194 7, exclusively purposes of the Province of \Vest Bengal :
Held, that the liability to pay rent was not a "financial obligagation" contemplated by article 9 and the Government of West
Bengal was liable under article 8(2)(a) of the abovesaid order to
pay the rent which had accrued up to the 15th August, 194 7.
Province of 1'Vest Ben.gal v. Midnapnr Zemindari Go., Ltit.
(54 O. W. N. 677), Sree Sree Iswar Madan Gopal Jia v. Province
of West Bengal (54 0. W. N. 807) and The State of P.nnjab v.
L. 111ohanlal Bhayana (A. I. R. 1951 Punj. 382) referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 119 of 1951.
Appeal by special leave granted by the. Supreme
Coutt of India by its. Order dated 14th December,
•