- (1.) THIS is a petition by truck owners and two of their associations. The petitioners have their business premises in the following five areas which are busi ness centres in Kanpur city: (a) Collector Ganj. (b) Canal Range, (c) Rizvi Road, Nai Barak, (d) Luqman Mohal, Canal Range, (e) Dhankutti. Previously they used to load and unload goods in front of their business premises abutting the road patri where the trucks use to be parked. On October 17. 1969 the senior Superintendent of Police, Kan pur, issued an order under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 183 of the Rules framed thereunder pro hibiting the parking of heavy vehicles at any time during the day or night in cer tain localities of Kanpur except under a permit to be granted by him or the Supe rintends it of Police City, Kanpur. Roads which were affected by this order are situate in Collectorganj, Rizvi Road, Ifti-kharabagh, Birhana Road and Canal Range. This affected the business of the transporters like the petitioners.
(2.) IT is stated that in order to re lieve congestion from the streets of Kan pur and to ' facilitate the transport busi ness the N3gar Mahapalika, Kanpur, de cided in 1962 to establish a scheme known as 'Transport Nagar' Kanpur. A large area was proposed to be Riven to the transporters on lease for purposes of establishing their business in that area. To meet the rising demand from the transporters for land the scheme was ex tended in 1969 whereby similar plots were allotted to transporters in another locality. The petitioners have alleged that they have not been allotted plots by the Nagar Mahapalika for setting up their business premises and they cannot carry on business on account of prohibi tory order issued by the Senior Superin tendent of Police. They have thus ap proached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police and for a writ of mandamus to the Nagar Maha palika to grant sites to them so that they may carry on their transport business. Sri N. D. Pant, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, has urged that the petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the peti tioners Nos. 1 and 2 are transport asso ciations, which have no locus standi to file the writ petition and some of the petitioners have already been provided sites. With regard to the remaining petitioners it is stated that they did not comply with the conditions for the grant of a site in the Transport Nagar Scheme and in any case the controversy raised in this petition is essentially a contro versy of fact which cannot be decided on a petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution. Mr. Dhawan, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that it is wrong that the petitioners did not comply with the conditions for allotment of sites. Ac cording to him, the petitioners' applica tions were never considered by the Nagar Mahapalika. In my opinion it is not neces sary to enter into this controversy, be cause this writ petition must fail on ano ther vital point.
(3.) SO far as the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police is concerned, it is not denied that he was competent to pass such an order under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 183 thereof. As the im pugned order recites it has been passed in the interest of public safety and conve nience. Mr. Dhawan does not dispute that such an order could be validly passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, if in his opinion, it was necessary so to do in order to relieve, congestion and in the interest of public safety and convenience. The Senior Superintendent of Police thus has not exceeded his jurisdiction and his order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.;