SCA/8183/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8183 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== AMRELI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & another Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & others ====================================== Appearance : MR PJ KANABAR for Petitioner Mr. Vipul Mistry, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. MR YV SHAH for Respondent N.4 ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE Date : 10/09/2008 SCA/8183/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 Amreli Chamber of Commerce, through its President, and Sudhir Vallabhdas Rangparia, a resident of Amreli, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge the legality and validity of Notification dated 7th December 1992, after lapse of 16 years, on the ground that respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Amreli, has no power to issue such notification in exercise of powers under Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By the impugned notification, the District Magistrate, Amreli, has provided alternative places of parking for buses, trucks, rickshaws and taxis. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as provided under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, [for short, 'the Act'], the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by the State Government, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned may determine places at which the 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, etc, and, in Rule 188 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1981 ['Rules' for short], in consultation with the local authority, the Regional Transport Authority may, by notification in the official gazette in respect of picking up and setting down of passengers or both by public service vehicles, make such provision. Therefore, such powers can be exercised by the Competent Authority in exercise of powers under Section 117 of the Act read with Rule 188 of the Rules. In the present case, respondent SCA/8183/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT No.2 has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act and, therefore, issuance of the said notification in exercise of such power deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader mainly relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that provision made under Section 118 of the Act and Rule 188 of the Rules and exercise of powers under Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act are in different arena and even if it is presumed that, under different statutes, powers are conferred upon the Authority, the same is not in conflict with each other. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, respondent No.2 has taken decision after consultation with the District Safety Council of Amreli and inviting objections so as to regulate traffic in the town of Amreli and the decision taken in bona fide public interest does not deserve any interference by this Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that the present petition is barred by gross delay and laches and deserves to be rejected at the threshold. 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition deserves to be rejected only on the ground of delay and laches, in as much as, the notification, which was issued on 7th September 1992, is challenged by filing the present writ petition in 2008 almost after lapse of 16 years. 6 That apart, even on merits, the petitioner has no case. 7 Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act provides for power to make rules or regulations of traffic and for preservation of order in public place, etc. Under clauses [b] and [c] of sub-section (1) of Section SCA/8183/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT 33 of the Act, the Commissioner may make rules regulating traffic of all kinds in streets, and public places, and the use of streets and public places by persons riding, driving, cycling, walking or leading or accompanying cattle, so as to prevent danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public and regulating the conditions under which vehicle may remain standing in streets and public places, and the use of streets as halting places for vehicles or cattle. In light of the above, if the impugned notification is perused, the same is issued after preliminary notification dated 12th October 1991 and, after inviting objections, it is found fit in the public interest by the District Magistrate that bus-stand, truck-stand, taxi and rickshaw stand situated within the city limits of Amreli in the larger public interest deserve to be removed and provisions are made for about 15 alternative places for parking of rickshaws and taxis in the town of Amreli. Sub-section (b) of Section 133 of the Bombay Police Act is for regulating traffic for all kinds and streets and public places and, while regulating traffic, it becomes necessary for the Competent Authority to remove congestion of traffic by providing alternative place. Therefore, it cannot be said that exercise of such power is not contemplated by clause [b] of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act. The action of the Competent Authority of removing and replacing parking stand for buses, trucks, rickshaws or taxis and providing alternative place cannot be said to be beyond the scope of this Section. Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act though provides parking place and halting stations determined by the Authority authorized on behalf of the State Government, Rule 188 clearly provides and empowers the District Magistrate to exercise power under that Rule. According to this Court, both the above Section 117 and Rule 188 operate in different areas and situation and have no conflict with Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. What is done by the District Magistrate by exercising power under Section 33(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act is regulation of SCA/8183/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT traffic, which is prime importance of citizens of Amreli, and shifting the parking places and halting stations, which are causing hindrance to smooth traffic, by providing alternative place. Thus, such exercise of power by respondent No.2, bonafidly after following the due procedure in the public interest, after inviting objections, cannot be said to be either lack of source of power or without jurisdiction. 8. It is to be noted that challenge to the very notification in Regular Civil Suit No.391 of 1992 had failed and Regular Civil Appeal No.10 of 1999 also came to be dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 31st March 2005, where another organization of Amreli, viz., Chamber of Commerce & Industries, was plaintiff/appellant. 9. In the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy)