Case: Harman Singh And Others Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Culcutta And Others

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 has 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 instruction. The learned Advocate-General also took more or less the same line in his argument 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 vehicles 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 prescribed 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 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 respect of big taxi cabs by notification issued in 1944 and 1951 is not is 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(1)(g) of the Constitution, it was open to them to challenge the vires of that rule; but that not having been done, that question does not concern us here.7. 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 appellants who are owners of taxi cabs between 22 and 20 H. P. under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In our judgment, this question can be answered only n 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 which is based on a rational classification is permissible. A law applying to a class is constitution if there is sufficient basis or reason for it. In other words, 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 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.8. 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 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 Article 19(1)(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 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel has 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.In our judgment, this question can be answered only n 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 which is based on a rational classification is permissible. A law applying to a class is constitution if there is sufficient basis or reason for it. In other words, 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 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.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 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 Article 19(1)(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 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