- (1.) The petitioner transport company impugns the notification issued as 16, 1975 (Annexure P. I) vide which the General Manager, Haryana Roadways has been authorized to exercise the powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police for carrying into effect the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (for short, the Act) by way of amendment of Rule 10.2 of the Rules, known as Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, I940, on a wide variety of grounds. This challenge is based on the following facts.
(2.) Petitioner runs twelve return trips daily on the inter-State Delhi-Hissar route on the basis of the permits granted by the State Transport Authority. Delhi and duly countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Hissar. These permits have been granted as a result of the reciprocal arrangement between the States of Haryana and Delhi in terms of Section 63 of the Act. For sometime past, the State of Haryana has completely nationalized the transport services in the entire State and thus the private operations stand eliminated. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, respondent No. 3, controls the operation of services and staff of the Roadways working in Hissar Dept. Out of his multifarious duties, one is to apply for permits to the transport authorities of the State and to Delhi authorities for the countersignatures of those permits. According to the petitioner this obligation makes the General Manager, Haryana Roadways "an Operator running by services on the abovenoted route." He, along with the petitioner, is also required to frame a joint timetable for running their buses according to running schedule. Since according to the petitioner the buses of the respondent State are 'ricketty' and 'frequently out of order' and cannot possibly complete in efficiency and many other matters with the buses running by the petitioner, "a bad blood and unhappy relations have developed between the petitioner respondent No. 3." On account of the abovenoted background and in consonance with the avowed policy of the State Government not to allow private operators to operate within the boundaries of the Haryana State, respondent No. 3 started to harass and challan the petitioner company in exercise of his newly conferred powers as a policy officer. Petitioner's case further is that as a result of some extraneous reasons and the reckless exercise of the abovenoted power, the company has been challaned more than fifteen times during the period January 6, 1978 to mid-April, 1978. It is also highlighted on its behalf that for somewhat similar omissions and commissions done by the staff of the Roadways, their buses are not checked or challaned by this officer. Petitioner claims to have made along with private operators a number of representations to the Chief Minister and the Transport Minister, Haryana, but without any result. In the light of these facts, it is sought to be contended on its behalf that:-- (i) The Act does not contemplate the contemplate of powers of a police officer on an operator or his servants or officers: (ii) To confer such powers on State officials who have to perform the role of an operator and not to confer similar powers on private operators, is an act of discrimination and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) The conferment of the abovenoted powers on the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, and the exercise of the same in a reckless manner against the petitioner amounts to unreasonable restriction on the carrying on the transport business or trade by the petitioner company and is thus derogatory to the provisions of Art. 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution; and (iv) Secretary to Government, Haryana, Transport Department, under whose signatures the impugned notification has been issued, was not competent to issue the same as in accordance with the delegation of powers under Art. 166 of the Constitution the Department of Police and the authority to confer police powers on an officer of the State vests in the Home Department of the State Government and not the Transport Department.
(3.) As against this. the case of the respondent State is that the conferment of powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Police an the General Manager. Haryana Roadways, in exercise of its powers under Section 133-A of the Act for the limited purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act is not in any way derogatory to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. Besides justifying the action taken by the said officer and denying that there was any bad blood or unhappy relationship between the parties, it is highlighted on its behalf that the petitioner has all and every opportunity to impugn the action of the General Manager in a Court of law, when it is put on judicial trial as a result of the challans prepared by him against it.;