# Thi Atlus Cycl1 lndnJtries. Ltd,, Sonepat v. Their Workmen Venkatarama

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 105
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah, R. M:uDHOLKAR
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/thi-atlus-cycl1-lndnjtries-ltd-sonepat-v-their-workmen-venkatarama-2358
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Pu.blic ferry--Toll-Right to
coUe<t from Governrnent
Roadway JJuses-Co nmercial undertaking by Government, if
public service-Hotijication No 252/IX-209/ (10) dated March.
JG, 1925-Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (XVII of 1878)
• 15.
The appellant being the highest bidder at a public auc·
tion got the right to collect the toll in respect of ferry for
crossing the river of Piprighat for the year 1954. The'practice
upto 1954 wa.• to allow the licensee to collect the toll from
every stage carriage bus.
Till March of the year 1954 only
privately owned stage carriage buses used to ply on the route.
Thereafter the route \\'as taken over by the Roadways
department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The applicant
was informed 1'.nter alia that no toll \vas leviablc on the Roadways Vehicles and was asked to pay the monthly instalments
of the 1ictnse fee without making any deduction therefor
consequent upon the exemption of the Roadways buses from
tolls. The point for consideration foter alia is whether tii~
1962
Thi Atlus Cycl1
lndnJtries. Ltd,,
Sonepat
v.
Their Workmen
Venkatarama
Aiyar J.
1962.
Februaty II.
1962
S1i Saij'a N arai11
~i11gh
••
Di.1tric1 Enginttr,
l'.lf'.O.
Muilwlkar J.
106 sePREME COCRT n.EP01{'f8 (HJ62] SCPP.
appella11t was bouru.l tu allo\\'. the state carriage buses 0f U.P.
Governrncnt tu cross the river by ferry \Vithout collecting
any toll.
/leld, that the notification No. 252/IX-209/( 10) dated
March 16, 1925 exc1npts a vehicle crossing the river on 'public or district board service', an<l
it could not be said that
plying motor busrs by way of comn1ercial activity is n1nning
it on a public service. 'l'he vcluclcs of the lload,,·ays depart·
mcnt of the Gover11mc11t of Uttar
Pradesh crossing over
ferries cannot be regarded as crossing on public service.
It
may be that plying stage carri<lge buses rvcn though for hire
is an activity undertaken by the Government for ensuring the people a cheap, regular and reliable. 1node of tr:lnsport
and is in that sense beneficial to the public, but it does not
cease to be a co1nn1crcial activjty if it is run with 1profit mo1ive.
The vehicles of the Road,vays crossing the river cannot be
exempted under the l'iotification of March 15, 1925.
Jleld, further that activities undertaken in the exercise of
the sovereign power of the state or of Governn1enta} functions
arc undoubtedly to be regarded as public services bul a pure
business undertaking though run by the Govcrninent cannot
be classified as pubJic service.
An activity however beneficial
to the people and hov\'cvCr useful cannot reasonably be regarded as public service an<l cease to be a commercial undertaking if it is of a type \\'hich n1ay be carried on by private·
individuals ahd is carried on by Government \\'ith a distinct
profit rnotivc. lly
reason of the fact
that a co1nmercial
undertaking is O\'t·ncd and run by the State, it docs not ipso
fachJ Uccome a "public service".
Crvn. APPELLA'rE Ju1mm!C'nox: C. A. No.
4:J5 of 1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
September :10, 1!156 of the Allahabad High Court in
~pectal Appeal Xo. 243 of 1955.
Naunit Lal for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit and C. P. Lal for tho 1-tespondent.
1962. February 8.
The following Judgment
of the Court was delivered by
:\IuDHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by certificate from tho judgment of the High Court of
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
107 •
Allahabad reversing the decision of a single Judge
of that Court directing the issue of a writ of Mandamus against the respondents under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. The points which arise for consideration in the appeal are whether the appellant who
was at the relevant time the lessee of a right to
collect tolls from persons, vehicles etc., crossing the
river by public ferry at Pipraghat, District Ballia
was bound to allow State carriage buses belonging
to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to cross the
river by the ferry without collecting any toll or was
entitled to claim abatement of rent from the Governme

## Text

3 S.C.R.
. SU~REME COURT REPORTS
105
The contention urged before us is that this provision has no retrospective operation· and that in
consequence t.he proceedings which had been pending before the old Tribunal on March 10, 1957,
could not be transferred to the new Tribunal under
thi" section. This content.ion is clearly untenable,
because the whole object of s.30(2) is to provide
for the hearing of disputes which were pending
before the old Tribunal, and its operation is
entirely retrospective. This contention must therefore be rejected.
In the result, the repeal fails and is dismissed
with costs.
"
A ppe,al dismissed.
SRI SATYA NARAIN SINGH
v.
DISTRICT ENGINEER, P.W.D. AND ANOTHEli
(B. P. SINHA, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J. C. SHAH and J, R. M:uDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Pu.blic ferry--Toll-Right to
coUe<t from Governrnent
Roadway JJuses-Co nmercial undertaking by Government, if
public service-Hotijication No 252/IX-209/ (10) dated March.
JG, 1925-Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (XVII of 1878)
• 15.
The appellant being the highest bidder at a public auc·
tion got the right to collect the toll in respect of ferry for
crossing the river of Piprighat for the year 1954. The'practice
upto 1954 wa.• to allow the licensee to collect the toll from
every stage carriage bus.
Till March of the year 1954 only
privately owned stage carriage buses used to ply on the route.
Thereafter the route \\'as taken over by the Roadways
department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The applicant
was informed 1'.nter alia that no toll \vas leviablc on the Roadways Vehicles and was asked to pay the monthly instalments
of the 1ictnse fee without making any deduction therefor
consequent upon the exemption of the Roadways buses from
tolls. The point for consideration foter alia is whether tii~
1962
Thi Atlus Cycl1
lndnJtries. Ltd,,
Sonepat
v.
Their Workmen
Venkatarama
Aiyar J.
1962.
Februaty II.
1962
S1i Saij'a N arai11
~i11gh
••
Di.1tric1 Enginttr,
l'.lf'.O.
Muilwlkar J.
106 sePREME COCRT n.EP01{'f8 (HJ62] SCPP.
appella11t was bouru.l tu allo\\'. the state carriage buses 0f U.P.
Governrncnt tu cross the river by ferry \Vithout collecting
any toll.
/leld, that the notification No. 252/IX-209/( 10) dated
March 16, 1925 exc1npts a vehicle crossing the river on 'public or district board service', an<l
it could not be said that
plying motor busrs by way of comn1ercial activity is n1nning
it on a public service. 'l'he vcluclcs of the lload,,·ays depart·
mcnt of the Gover11mc11t of Uttar
Pradesh crossing over
ferries cannot be regarded as crossing on public service.
It
may be that plying stage carri<lge buses rvcn though for hire
is an activity undertaken by the Government for ensuring the people a cheap, regular and reliable. 1node of tr:lnsport
and is in that sense beneficial to the public, but it does not
cease to be a co1nn1crcial activjty if it is run with 1profit mo1ive.
The vehicles of the Road,vays crossing the river cannot be
exempted under the l'iotification of March 15, 1925.
Jleld, further that activities undertaken in the exercise of
the sovereign power of the state or of Governn1enta} functions
arc undoubtedly to be regarded as public services bul a pure
business undertaking though run by the Govcrninent cannot
be classified as pubJic service.
An activity however beneficial
to the people and hov\'cvCr useful cannot reasonably be regarded as public service an<l cease to be a commercial undertaking if it is of a type \\'hich n1ay be carried on by private·
individuals ahd is carried on by Government \\'ith a distinct
profit rnotivc. lly
reason of the fact
that a co1nmercial
undertaking is O\'t·ncd and run by the State, it docs not ipso
fachJ Uccome a "public service".
Crvn. APPELLA'rE Ju1mm!C'nox: C. A. No.
4:J5 of 1958.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
September :10, 1!156 of the Allahabad High Court in
~pectal Appeal Xo. 243 of 1955.
Naunit Lal for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit and C. P. Lal for tho 1-tespondent.
1962. February 8.
The following Judgment
of the Court was delivered by
:\IuDHOLKAR, J.-This is an appeal by certificate from tho judgment of the High Court of
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
107 •
Allahabad reversing the decision of a single Judge
of that Court directing the issue of a writ of Mandamus against the respondents under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. The points which arise for consideration in the appeal are whether the appellant who
was at the relevant time the lessee of a right to
collect tolls from persons, vehicles etc., crossing the
river by public ferry at Pipraghat, District Ballia
was bound to allow State carriage buses belonging
to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to cross the
river by the ferry without collecting any toll or was
entitled to claim abatement of rent from the Government under the proviso to s.15 of the .Northern
India Ferries Act 1878 (hereafter referred to as the
Act).
In order to appreuiate the points a few facts
need to be stated. There is a ferry at the village
Pipraghat, district Ballin for crossing the river and
the right to collect tolls in respect of that ferry is
put to public auction annually. The highest bidder
at the auction gets the right.
The rent or licence
fee is collected from him in monthly instalments
during the year with respect to which the right was
purchased by the licensee. The appellant was the
highest bidder for the year 1954 and the licence fee
payable by him was Rs. 31,751/·. The practice right
upto 1954 .was to allow the lessee to collect a toll
of Rs. 5-1-0 from every stage carriage bus. Till
March 9 of tha.t year only privately owned stage
carriage bt1ses
used to ply on the route in
which
the
ferry
crossing
was
comprised.
Thereafter the r0ute has been taken over by the
Roadways Dapartment of tha State of Uttar
Pradesh. From March 9 to March 16, the appellant realised tolls at Rs. 5.J.O from the State-owned
stage carriage buses when he was informed by a
]13tter by the first respondent that he should allow
the Roadways buses to use the ferry for crossing
and recrossing the river on credit till March
ill, 1954 and should thereafter submit his bill with
1962
Sri Satya Narain
Singh
v.
District En.e,inrer,
P. W.D.
J1.udholkar J.
1662
·'-'ri Sa:ya Nt.rain
8i11gh
••
Di!trid E11ginttt,
P. W. D.
.ll 11dhol kar .J;
108 SUPRR:\fE COURT REPORTS [1962] £UPP.
respect to the tolls to the Roa<lways Department of
the Government_\He was also informed that further
or<lers will he issm·d on April I, 19ii4.
The a.ppella nt accordingly a I low< cl the H.oad ways buses to use
the ferry for eros~ing and rP-r-rossiug the rivor and
submitted his bill to the Roadways Department
on J\Iarch :ll, HJ,i.i.
That bill was, howover, not
paid.
On April I, I !);";.i he received two communications from respondeut no. I by one of which ho was
iufo1 med that no toll is leviab.le ou the Roadways
vehieles an<l by another he was asked to pay the
mouthlv instalment of t.he
liccnc<'
foe without
making. auy deduetion therefor consequent upon
the exemption of tho Roadways busrs from tolls.
The appellant had move<l the High Court of
Allahabad under Art. ~26 of tlw Constitution fur ·
the issue of a wt it directing the respondent "to
refrain from precluding the pditioner from charging
tolls from the Hoadwavs hus1·s"', to issue a writ
comm:inding the respon;lents to ;;llow a batcmt>nt
to tlw appellant and to issun rm int1·l'im direction to
the respondents asking tht!m to refrain from rcalis·
ing the unpaid monthly instalments of the licence
fees till the decision was gi1«,11.
Before the petition
was decided the appellant's licence had run out and,
therefore, at the hearing the appellnnt confined
himself to one relief, tha,t id, commanrling the rnspondcnts to allow rebate une account of the excmp·
tion of the Roadw:iys buses from liability to pay
the tolls. The petition W•L<, however, not amendP-d.
We may incidentally mention that 11part. from the
relief,; a.bo\'C referred to, the appellant clrdmed two
more reliefo, one of which was to pass any such
oth•-r and further order as may be 1lc1·nwd fit and
proper.
The learned single ,Judge of t.he High Court
~h,9 decided the petition ill the first instance c~me
•
~ S.C.R. SUPBEMJ1J COUBT REPOBTS
lO!:J
to the conclusion that the appelhnt was entitled
to abatement of rent under the third paragraph of
s.15 of the Act and directed the issue of a writ tu the
respondents directing them to "perform their statutory duty relating to abatement of rent" payable by
the appellant consequent on the exemption ofBoadWll,JS buses from payment of tolls under the aforesaid provision before claiming or recovering arrears
of rent from him.
The respondents preferred an
appeal under the Letters· Patent which was heard
by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
The learned Judges held that a licensee is not
entitled to abatement of rent unless the Government makes a declaration under s.15 of the Act
subsequent to the grant of licence to him. It
pointed out that the G.O. No. 1946/17-,') l dated
December 11, 1951 upon which reliance was placed
by the learned single Judge being prior in point uf
time to the grant of the licence to collect
tolls to the appellant, did not entitle him to claim
abatement. It, however, held that the appellant
may be entitled to claim abatement of rent or
licence fee under the general law but that such a
relief could be claimed only in a suit but not in a
proceeding under Art. 226
of the Constitution.
They thus allowed the appeal and dismissed the
petition.
Section 15 of the Northern India Ferries Act,
1878 runs thus:
"Toll, according to such rates as are from
time to time fixed b} the State Government,
shall be levied on all persons, animals, vehicles and other things crossing any river by a
public ferry and not employed or transmitted
on the public service:
Provided that the State Government
may from time to time, declare that any
persons, animals, vehicles
or other things
shall be exempt from payment of such tolls .
1962
Sri Satya Jllarain
8ingh
v.
DiBtrict Engi111er1
P. lV. D.
Mudhollcar J.
1962
Sri "aty.i Na rain
Sir.gh
v.
Dirtrict f~'neintn,
p_ IF. D.
!rludlw/kar J,
I 10
SUPRE~fE COIJR.T REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
. \VherP the tolls of a. ferry have been let
under s~ction 8, any such decl>iration, if made
nft~r the date of the lease, shall entitle the
]Pssce to such abatement of the rent payable
in rc8poct of tho tolls as may be fixed by the
. Commi~sioner of the division or such other
officer as tho :qtatc Government may, from
timp, to time, appoint in this behalf by
11ame or virtue of his office."
The proviso to the· section confers upon
the State Govp,rnment power to declare from time
to time any persons,
anima Is,
vehicles
etc.,
exempt from p'\yment of such tolls.
Before the
question of allo\\'imr ahatement of rnnt or licence
fee can arise it must first ho est.ah!ishod that there
was a valid exempt.ion with respect to any vehicles
etc., under s. 15 of the Act.
The section also
provides that where such declaration is ma.de sub8equent to the grant of licence to colloct tolls
under s. 8 the licensee is entitled to abatement of
rent.:
The Government order to which reference
has been made in th<> two judgments of the High
Court runs as follows:
"Subject: Exemption from payment. of
toll.
I am dt•sircd to sa:v that a question ha.a
hecn raised whether the Roadways Motor
v.,hicles should be exempt from payment of
forrv tolls while crollSing any river by a
public ferry.
Government have given their
full consiclera.t.ion to this matter and havti
come to the conclusion that the motor vehicles
run by the Road\\'ays with the operational
fitaff 'accompanying them on duty fall under
the exemption granted
from payment of
frrry toll in paragraphs 2(a) of notification
no. 252/-fX.20!J/(10) dated March 16, Ul25
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Ill
(published on page 347 of the District Board
Manual).
.
2.
I am, however, to observe tbat the
passengers travelling in these vehicles with their
goods and all the private goodF, being t~ans
ported in the Roadways trucks shall be hable
to the payment of tolls as heretofore according
to the rates fixed by the Local Government.
3.
The District Magistrate,
District
Board and ferry contractors in your division
may please be informed accordingly.''
It may be pointed out that this order, if what
appears to be merely a communication addressed
to certain authorities can be regarded as a Government order, does not itself confer any exemption
with respect to the buses run by the U. P. Roadways but sets out. the opinion of the Government
that such buses must be regarded as being exempted
under a notification of March 16, 1925 issued under
s. 15 of the Act. That notification reads thus:
"2. The following shall be exempt from the
payment of tolls:
(a) All persons animals and vehicles
crossing -tny river by a public ferry when
employed or transmitted on the public or
District Board service."
Admittedly at that date thn State was not
running any bus services in the IJnited Provinces
(now the State of Uttar Pradesh). May be there
were no Government-owned buses at all in any
other province of India at that time. Moreover
it would not be reasonable to assume that a State
enterprise of this kind was even in the contemplation of the U. P. Government nt that time. At
that time, apart from running some railways the
Stiite had not entered the commercial field.· It is
in the light of these facts that the language of the
notification of March 16, 1925, must be interpreted.
196Z
Sri Satya Narain
Singh
v.
Dislrict Engineer,
P.W.D.
M u.dholkar J,
1962
Sri Satya .1\'aroi11
Sm.r;h
"·
Diilrict E11Ji11tt1,
P. W. D.
Mudholkar J.
ii2 SUPREi\IE COtJRT HEPORTS [l!l62] surP.
What the notification ex~mpts is <L vehicle crossing
the ri1·cr on 'pulilic or diHtrict board service'.
Could it be said that plying motor buses liy wa~· of
commercial
activity is running it 011 a public
service? It is undoulitedly not easy to define
what is "public s•?rvice" and rach activity has t.o he·
consiriered by itself for
d~ciding whether it is
carried on as a public service or 11ot.
Certain
activitil'B will undoubtedly he regarded as public
services, as for instance, t.hose undertaken in the
exercise of thl: sovereign power of the State or of
governmental functions.
About these there can be
no doubt. Similarly a pure business undertaking
though rnn by the Government cannot be classificd
as public service.
But whern a particular activity
concerns a public utility a question may aiise
whether it falls in the first or the second category.
The mero fact that that activity may be useful to
the public would not necessarily render it public
service. An activity howe\•er
beneficial to the
people and however useful cannot, in our opinion,
he reasonably regarded as public service if it is of
a typu which may be carried on by private individuals and is carried on by government with a
distinct pn>fit motive. It may be that plying stage
carriage buses even though for hire is an acth·ity
undertaken by the Government for ensuring the
people a cheap, regular
and reliable mode of
tranoport and ·is in that sense henrficial to the
public. It does not, however, cease to be a commercial activity if it is run with profit motive.
Indeed even private operators in order to attract
custom are also interested in providing the samo
facilities to the public as the Government under-·
taking provides. Since that is so, it is difficult to
see what difference there is between the activity
carried on by private individuals and that carried
on by Government. By reason of the fact that a
commercial undertaking is owned and run by the State
\ -
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 113
it do~s not ipso .facto bepome a 'public service'. It
is not disputed before us that the Roadways department of the Government of U. P. is running a
profit making and a profitable activity by excluding
every kind of competition. In the circumstances,
therefore, we find it impossible to hold that its
vehicles crossing over ferries can be regarded ltB
crossing on public service. They are, therefore,
not entitlec'I to any exemption under the notification
of March 15, 1925. Since thev are not entitled to
any exemption the question of abatPment of rent
does not arise.
It is true that the petitioner, as already
stated, confined himself at the sfa ge of ar1rnments
in the High Court to the relief of abatement because
of change of circumstances which
took place
between the date of filing his petition and its
hearing. He did so evidently upon a misundAr·
standing of the legal position with regard to the
scope of the notification of March 16, l!l25.
How·
ever, the appellant has raised an alternntive con·
tention in his Statement of the case to the effect
that the Roadways buses which carry passengers
are used by the Government for carrying on a
commercial undertaking '1.nd that; therefore they do
not come within the exemption made by the noti·
fica ti on of the year 1925.
In view of this and of
the fact that the petition which contains a prayer
for grant of 'other relief' has not been amended
and is thus in its original form we see no difficulty
in granting appropriate relief to the appellant.
In the result we allow the appeal and set
a•ide the judgment of the Division Bench as well as
of the single judge of the High Court of Allahabad and
direct that a writ in the nature of mandamus shall
issue to the respondents directing them to pay to
the appellant full tolls with respect to every
196t
Sri Satya Narai'i
Sint,h
"·
District Engineer,
P. W.D.
Mudholkar J.
1962
Sri Sntya .1Va1ain
Sill th
v.
Dist1ict Enginr:<r,
P. W.D.
Mudholkar J,
1962
Ftbruary fl.
•
114 SUPRE:IIE COURT REPORTS [.962] St.:I P.
crossing of the' Roadways buses over t.he ferry
betwe<'n l\farch 16, 191">4, and the dnto on which the
licence in favour of the appellant expired.
•
The costs of the appellant here and in the
High Court will lrn borne by the r•,8pondents.
Appeal allou:ed.
IXDER LAL
v.
LAL SINGH
(P. B. GA.JJ·::>DRAC:ADKAU, A. K. SARKAU e.ncl
IC N. \VANCHOO, JJ.)
Elccfion~--Corn~pf Praclicr-Faf.i;e statement in relatt'on to
7ir.u;o11al 1;/ir1ractcr ()Y r:onducl of canitidaU-StaU.nient alleging
]Htrr},osing of i·of-es-lj tf'dales to pi.rsonal charactr:r-Rcpres~nla
rion of II« l'eop!c Act, 1951 ( 4:J of Jli:jl), "· 123 (4).
Respondent I was declared rlected to the Legislative
Asscrnbly.
llis election \\'as challenged, inter a./ia, on the
ground that he had committed the rorrupt practice under
s. 123 (4~ of the Rep"sentation af People Act, 1951 of making
false statements in relation to the
personal character ·or
conduct uf H.espo11dent 2, a defeated candidate. The staterrcnts "·ere rontained in a pamphlet issued by the agent of
Respondent I ,,·ith his consent.
Among
other statements
the patnphlct contained a false statement that the Respondent 2 \\'as ''purchasrr of the cpponents of the Congress hy
rncans of moneyn.
Respondent I cont,nded that the staten1ent related to the public: or political character of Respondent 2 an<l not to his private character and did not fall
within the mischief of s. 123 (4).
!If-Id,
that the statement
r~lated to the
personal
character of l{t"spondent 2 and Respondent 1 "'"·as guilty of
thr. corrupt practice under s. 123 (4) of the Ar.t. The offending staternent amounted to an allegation that Respondent 2
bought the votes of the opponents of the Congrc~s by offering bribes.
Bribery \Vas itself a corrupt practice and an
allegation of bribery involved moral t11rpitude anrl·clearly
and
unfquivocally
affected
the
private
character of
Respondent 2.