BIHAR TRUCK OWNER ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2022-4-1
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on April 25,2022

Bihar Truck Owner Association Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

N.K. BAJPAI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PADFIELD V. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE,FISHERIES AND FOOD [REFERRED TO]
PUNTON V. MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA V. JUSTICE S.R. TENDOLKAR [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS VS. V G ROW:THE UNION OF INDIA AND THE STATE OF TRAVANCORE COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
SAGHIR AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHINKA VS. CHARAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MADHUBHAI AMATHALAL GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD FARUK VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY THE HINDUSTAN TIMES LIMITED INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI PRIVATE LIMITED G NARASIMHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THE L 1 C LIMITED THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BHAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI:THE ASSOCIATION OF CLASS II OFFICERS 0 N G C:SHYAM LAL SHARMA:THE INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KHANDSARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED STATESMAN LIMITED KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. UMED RAM SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
ASIF HAMEED STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR RAJEEV MAHAJAN JYOTI KUMARI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:RAJEEV MAHAJAN:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR:STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE AS SOCIATION SUPREME COURT FOURTH CLASS EM PLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION S P JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MITHILESHGARG VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TATA CELLULAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SEVANIVATRA KARAMCHARI HITKARI SAMITI [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA SAW MILL VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
K R LAKSHMANAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP PHARMA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OM KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DINESH ENGINEERING CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SHARMA TRANSORT REP VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ST JOHNS TEACHERS TRANING INSTITURTE VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GODAWAT PAN MASALA PRODUCTS I P LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P VS. T ANJENEYULU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. P KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
FULJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PARISONS AGROTECH (P) LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ANURADHA BHASIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The instant petitions, in terms of the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, were heard on priority basis. The following issues arise for consideration before this Court:- (i) Whether the scope of Sec. 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allow regulations of/ restrictions on the movement of goods? (ii) Is the impugned notification prohibiting the carriage of goods confined only to sand and stone chips on certain specified vehicles so arbitrary and unreasonable that it cannot be sustained? (iii) What is the nature, ambit and scope of Article 301 of the Constitution of India? Whether the power enumerated under Sec. 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are wide enough to impose a complete ban on intra and inter-state traffic with vehicles having 14 wheels or above? (iv) Whether the State possesses the legislative competence to restrict the use of National Highways? (v) Whether the impugned notification qualifies the requirement of reasonable restriction under Article 19 of the Constitution of India? (vi) Whether the State can in pursuance of public safety issue direction on an issue upon which the Central Government has already done so? Prayer/Relief
(2.) The petitioner(s)/its members are all owners and operators of multi-wheeled vehicles ordinarily used to transport goods, both inter and intra-State of Bihar. All petitions filed before this Court were heard together, keeping in view the near-identical nature of reliefs sought and the challenge laid.
(3.) Petitioners in (i) CWJC Nos.4310 of 2021 titled as Bihar Truck Owner Association v. The State of Bihar and ors.; (ii) 4217 of 2021 titled as Arvind Yadav and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors.; (iii) 4223 of 2021 titled as Bhagalpur District Truck Owner Association vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.; (iv) 4296 of 2021 titled as Ravish Kumar and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors.; (v) 4734 of 2021 titled as Mukesh Kumar Madhukar and Ors. v. The Union of India and ors.;(vi) 4981 of 2021 titled as Ashutosh Kumar and Ors. V. The Union of India and Ors.;(vii) 7926 of 2021 titled as Raushan Kumar v. The State of Bihar and ors.; and (viii) 1133 of 2022 titled as JSP Projects Private Limited v. The Union of India and Ors. seek quashing of the impugned notification dtd. 16/12/2020 and consequential communication dtd. 17/12/2020. Also, they seek declaration with respect to the scope and power of Sec. 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.