Captain
Sube Singh & Ors Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors [2004] Insc 346 (30 April 2004)
R.
C. Lahoti, B. N. Srikrishna & G. P. Mathur Srikrishna, J.
This
appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of
Delhi dated 19th October,
2000 dismissing the
writ petition of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the notification dated 31st December, 1999 issued by the Lt. Governor of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Appellant
Nos. 1 to 4 are transport operators who have been issued stage carriage permits
by the State Transport Authority, Delhi under various schemes. Appellant No. 5 is an association of bus
operators in Delhi, whose members have been granted
permits under various schemes for upliftment of different sections of society.
Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 represent the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi
and Respondent No. 4 is a statutory corporation set up under Section 3 of the
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950.
Respondent
No. 4, Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was continuously making losses and
found itself unable to handle the volume of work required for providing
efficient transport facilities for the public in Delhi. The work of transport was opened up to private operators
like the appellants, who were granted stage carriage permits under the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Rules made thereunder
(hereinafter referred to, respectively, as 'the Act' and 'the Rules'). Under
the new policy, which was adopted in or about 1991-92, about 3000 private buses
were permitted to operate within the territory of Delhi. These private operators were
granted permits to run buses under the provisions of the Act.
The
permit conditions were notified under a Scheme for grant of State Carriage
Permits to private bus operators in Delhi by the State Transport Authority. The Scheme was framed for
augmentation of the public transport in Delhi. The Scheme was formulated and publicised and also freely available to all
persons intending to seek permits for operating stage carriages. Although,
there was some dispute as to which were the exact permit conditions under which
the stage carriages were operated, at our instance, the
Secretary-cum-Commissioner of State Transport Authority, Department of
Transport, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi has filed an affidavit dated 13th
April, 2004 and also remained present before the Court and answered the queries
put by the Court. On the material placed before us, we are satisfied that the
said affidavit reflects the correct factual situation.
Sometime
in the year 1992, when the scheme was first formulated, the permit condition
stipulated in the scheme was as under:
"13.
The permit holder shall ensure that concessional passes issued to various
sections authorized for these buses shall be honoured." In the year 1995,
another scheme was launched by the S.T.A., Delhi for granting 392 stage carriage permits to the private operators. A
copy of this scheme is produced and marked as Annexure 2 to the affidavit of
Mr. Rajeev Talwar, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, S.T.A. Apart from indicating the
fare structure, the scheme provided that "there shall be a provision for
free passes for freedom fighters only. There may be a provision for monthly/quarterly
passes valid in all the private buses on a particular route." The permits
for stage carriage operations of private buses were, inter alia, made subject
to the following conditions:
"13.
The permit holder shall ensure that concessional passes issued to various
sections authorised for these buses shall be honoured.
....
17.
Permit holder shall ensure that the bus stops to pick up and allow the
passengers to get off at the authorised DTC bus stops and no passengers is
allowed to board or to get down at a non-prescribed bus stop. The operators
will have to pay service charges @ Rs. 250/- per bus on monthly basis to the
DTC for using DTC bus stops as determined by STA in consultation with the DTC.
....
"25.
The State Transport Authority, may after giving notice of not less than one
month:
(a)
Vary the conditions of the permit.
(b)
Attach to the permit further conditions."
In the
year 2002, another scheme for grant of stage carriage permits to private CNG
bus operators in Delhi was formulated and published by the
respondent authorities. A copy of this scheme is marked as Annexure 3 to the
aforesaid affidavit. Apart from indicating the fare structure, the scheme also
says, "there shall be a provision for free passes for freedom fighters
only. There may be a provision of monthly/quarterly passes valid in all the
private buses on a particular route." The relevant permit conditions
indicated in this scheme are as follows:
"13.
The permit holder shall ensure that concessional passes issued to various sections
authorised for these buses shall be honoured.
....
17.
Permit holder shall ensure that the bus stops to pick up and allow the
passengers to get off at the authorised DTC bus stops and no passenger is
allowed to board or to get down at a non-prescribed bus stop. The operators
will have to pay service charges for using DTC bus stops & bus terminals as
determined by STA in consultation with the DTC from time to time.
....
"25.
The State Transport Authority, may after giving notice of not less than one
month:
(a)
Vary the conditions of permit.
(b)
Attach to the permit further conditions."
Sometime
in the year 1997, both the DTC and the private operators appealed to the State
Transport Authority (STA) for revision in the fares on the ground that the cost
of various inputs like diesel, oil, staff salary and wages, insurance, road
tax, permit fee, repair charges, apart from increase in capital investment for
replacement and interest rates of borrowed capital, had increased between 25
per cent to 300 per cent. The State Transport Authority did not accede to the
request. Repeated and continued representations together with an unprecedented
35 per cent hike in diesel price in October, 1999 brought about a rethinking on
the part of the STA as a result of which a decision was taken on 16th October,
1999 by the State Government to revise the fare structure applicable to the DTC
and the private operators with effect from the said date on the same lines as
proposed by the DTC in the year 1998. It was also decided that the fare
structure should be uniform for both the DTC and the private operators. On 21st December, 1999, the State Government issued an
order to the STA directing that along with the upward revision of fare the
private operators would be required to:
(a) pay
Rs. 2500/- p.m. as Bus Shelter charges to DTC;
(b) pay
Rs. 5000/- p.m. for using the Bus Terminus to DTC; and that
(c) passes
issued by DTC would be applicable to all Private Stage Carriages.
This
decision was made applicable to all Private Stage Carriages with immediate
effect. The appellants and other stage carriers challenged the said order
before the Delhi High Court on various grounds. While the petition was pending
before the Delhi High Court, on 31st December, 1999, purportedly in exercise of its power under Section 67(1)
of the Act, the State Government issued a notification in the following terms:
"TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Delhi, the 31st December 1999. No. F.189/Secy/STA/99/2832 In exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 67 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Lt. Governor of the National Territory of
Delhi, having regard to clauses (a) to (d) of the said sub-section (1) hereby
issues the following directions to the State Transport Authority of Delhi,
namely:
Directions:
1. The
fares chargeable by the operators of stage carriages/city buses plying in the
National Capital Territory of Delhi shall be as follows :
Distance
Fare Upto 4 kilometers Rs. 2.00 From 4 kilometers upto 8 kilometers Rs. 4.00
From 8 kilometers upto 12 kilometers Rs. 6.00 Above 12 kilometers Rs. 8.00 For
the 'LTD', 'Green Line' and 'Railway Spl.' Buses the fare structure shall be
ten rupees instead of six rupees.
2. For
concessional bus passes the following rates shall be applicable.
Type
of pass New Rate General Destination Rs. 200/- General All-Route Rs. 400/-
General All route (Ltd) Rs. 450/- In the case of 'General Destination Pass' the
route shall be specified in the pass itself and one change of bus shall be
allowed rates of all other passes including 'student', 'Re- settlement Colony',
'Press' and 'Old age' shall remain the same.
3 (a)
The Private Stage Carriage with the upward revision of fares shall pay with
effect from 16th
October, 1999.
(i) Rs.
2500/- per month as bus queue shelters to DTC
(ii) Rs.
5000/- per month for using the bus terminal to DTC.
(b)
All DTC passes shall be applicable to all private Stage Carriages." Being
aggrieved by the notification, the appellants filed a writ petition before the
High Court of Delhi which came to be dismissed by the judgment of the High
Court dated 19th
October, 2000
upholding the legality and validity of the said notification.
Hence,
this appeal by special leave.
Learned
counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned notification is ultra vires
the powers of the State Government under Section 67 of the Act, apart from
being arbitrary and imposing unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right
to trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India. It is also contended that, as far as the provisions of the Act are
concerned, DTC is just an operator and private operators cannot be put into a
situation where they are required to subsidise the losses made by DTC for any
reason. It is also urged that neither the State Government nor the State
Transport Authority (STA) has the statutory authority under Section 67 of the
Act to impose conditions, other than fixing of fares, which are highly onerous
and discriminative against the private operators.
It is
also submitted that the operational statistics filed by the DTC before the High
Court clearly brings out that more than two thirds of the passengers travelling
by the DTC buses have been issued concessional passes and it would be unfair
and unjust to expect the private operators to give service in respect of
holders of such passes even though the revenue generated therefrom is
appropriated by the DTC.
Learned
counsel for the respondents have reiterated their contentions which weighed
with the High Court. They submit that, in the interest of discharging its
'social obligations' the DTC has already constructed several bus shelters and
terminals, which are permitted to be used by private operators and that in
discharge of its social obligations the DTC has issued concessional passes to
several sections of society and thereby incurs huge losses. Since differential
fare structures cannot be fixed in respect of different operators, it is but
fair, just and reasonable that a portion of this cost of social obligations is
imposed upon the private operators by an order made under the provisions of the
Act and the Rules.
Respondents
also contend that the impugned notification is fully justified as it is
pursuant to 'the desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among
holders of permits' within the meaning of Section 67(1)(d) of the Act.
Clause
(xxi) of sub-section (2) of Section 96 empowers the State Government to make
rules to ensure that stage carriages halt only at designated places. Clause
(xxii) of sub-section (2) of Section 96 empowers the State Government to
prescribe rules with regard to the construction or use of any duly notified
stand or halting place and the fees, if any, which may be charged for the use
of such facilities. Correspondingly, we have Rules 75 and 76.
No
transport vehicle can be plied without a permit under Section 66 of the Act.
Section 69 provides for making of applications for permits to the Regional
Transport Authority. Such permits in respect of stage carriages are issued
under Section 70 after following the procedure prescribed in Sections 71 and
72. Section 72(2) of the Act empowers the Regional Transport Authority to grant
a stage carriage permit subject to any rule that may be made under the Act and
by attaching to the permit any one or more of the conditions enumerated in
Clauses (i) to (xxiv). Clauses (xx), (xxii) and (xxiv) of Section 72(2) are
relevant for our purposes and read as under:
"(xx)
that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local
authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for
such use.
.
(xxii)
that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than
one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit;
(b)
attach to the permit further conditions Provided that the conditions specified
in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance
covered by the original route by more that 24 kilometres, and any variation
within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is
satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that
it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route
as so varied or any part thereof.
(xxiv)
any other conditions which may be prescribed." The State Government has
made the Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 in exercise of its powers under the
Act. Of relevance to the present discussion are Rules 75 and 76. Rule 75
provides for the manner of halting of stage carriages. Under sub-rule (2) of
Rule 75 the District Magistrate may direct that in any street or any road in an
urban area notified by him in this behalf, no stage carriage shall take up or
get down passengers except at a place appointed by him at a bus stop or at a
stand. Rule 76 deals with construction and control of stands and provides that
the District Magistrate may in consultation with the local authority having
jurisdiction in the area concerned, make an order permitting any place to be
used as a stand and that, without such an order no place shall be so used as a
stand. When a privately owned place is to be so notified, the rule provides
that the District Magistrate shall, from time to time, fix the fees or the
maximum fees payable at any stand.
Section
67 of the Act empowers the State Government, inter alia, to fix the fares and
freights for such stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages. The
relevant provision reads as under:
"67.
Power to State Government to control road transport.-
(1) A
State Government, having regard to- (a) (b) (c) (d) the desirability of
preventing uneconomic competition among holders of permits.
may,
from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, issue directions
both to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority (i)
regarding the fixing of fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum
in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods
carriages:
(ii) (iii)
" It was the case of the respondents before the High Court, and it is
their case before us, that the notification has been issued by the State
Government in exercise of its power under Section 67(1)(d) read with sub-
clause (i). In other words, it is contended that the notification is one which
fixes the fares and freights of the stage carriages, having regard to the
desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among holders of permits. The
submission is that DTC had already invested capital in construction of bus
shelters and terminals; if the private operators are permitted to use these
facilities without compensation to the DTC, the DTC would be put in a situation
of uneconomic competition, that DTC being a statutory corporation, and aware of
its social responsibility, had issued a large number of concessional passes to
students, war widows and their dependents, freedom fighters, disabled persons
and such others, which caused a heavy economic burden to DTC; the private
operators are not by law obliged to discharge this social responsibility, as a
result of which there is uneven playing field and uneconomic competition as far
as the DTC is concerned. Hence, it is just, fair and reasonable that private
operators are made to honour the concessional passes issued by DTC, which can
be done by recourse to Section 67 of the Act.
The
learned counsel for the appellants may be justified in his contention that,
apart from the concessions, which are expressly made available under the Act in
favour of State Transport Undertakings (see in this connection Chapter VI of
the Act), there are no special considerations in favour of DTC which must be
treated as any other operator. Reliance was placed on the observations of this
Court in Ishwar Singh Bagga and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan , at paragraphs 7 and 11. That, however, is not conclusive
of the matter.
The
action of the respondent authorities was not merely about giving a preferential
or favourable treatment to D.T.C. as an operator. The peculiar circumstances
under which the running of stage carriage permits within the N.C.T. of Delhi
were thrown open to private operators and the specific conditions imposed in
the permits would have to be kept in mind for adjudging the legality of the
impugned notification. With these factors in mind, the respondent had
appropriately prescribed permit condition No. 17 in the scheme published in the
year 1992 which reads as under:
"17.
Permit holder shall ensure that the bus stops to pick up and allow the
passengers to get off at the authorised DTC bus stops and no passengers is
allowed to board or to get down at a non prescribed bus stop. The operators
will have to pay service charges @ Rs. 250/- per bus on monthly basis to the
DTC for using DTC bus stops as determined by STA in consultation with the
DTC." This condition came to be modified in the scheme of 2002. Thus, the
private operators were granted stage carriage permits only on the condition
that they shall have to ensure that the passengers are picked up and dropped up
at authorised DTC bus stops and not elsewhere. They were also required to pay
service charges to use DTC bus stops and bus terminals "as determined by
STA in consultation with the DTC from time to time".
The
respondents contend that though, initially, the service charges for use of DTC
bus stops was fixed at Rs. 250/- per bus per month, they have been revised by
STA in consultation with the DTC and the revision is reflected in the
notification dated 31st December, 1999. As a result of the said notification,
the permit conditions stood revised. Clause 3 of the impugned notification
revises permit conditions and consequently the private stage carriage operators
have to pay with effect from 16th October, 1999, Rs. 2,500/- per month as
charges for using bus queue shelters to DTC and Rs. 5,000/- per month for using
the bus terminal to DTC.
As
already noticed, Section 72(2) of the Act gives power to the Regional Transport
Authority to attach conditions to stage carriage permits which are required to
be followed by the stage carriage operators. The condition in clause (xx) would
require that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a
local authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid therefor.
A stage carriage operator has no liberty in the manner of halting of the motor
vehicle in public places by reason of the directions made under Rule 75.
Consequently, the stage carriage operator is required to stop the bus only at
such places as directed by the conditions of the permit. It so happens that, in
the case of the appellants before us, they were directed to stop their buses
only at the bus stations and terminals of DTC. Thus, they have no choice in the
matter and are obliged to halt their buses at such specified places.
It is
settled law that the condition of a permit can be varied by a notification
issued by the Government under Section 67 of the Act. (See in this connection
B. Srikantiah and Ors. vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Anantapur and Ors.
and Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.
) The appellants have not challenged the legality of condition No. 17.
Their
only grievance is about the steep increase in the charges. Condition No. 17
requires the private stage carriage bus operators to make payment of such
charges as shall be determined by the STA in consultation with the DTC from
time to time. This was the very condition subject to which the permit was
issued to the appellants. The fact that originally the service charges payable
were @ Rs. 250/-, or that it has subsequently been revised, does not make the
condition of the permit illegal or ultra vires the powers of the respondent
authorities, as contended by the appellants. We find no merit in the contention
that the increase in the service charges payable to the DTC are unauthorised or
ultra vires the powers of the STA and the State Government.
The
next contention urged by the appellants is that Paragraph 3(b) of the
notification which provides, "all DTC passes shall be applicable to all
private stage carriages," is illegal and ultra vires. There appears to be
some merit in this contention. As we have noticed, the permit condition in the
1992 scheme merely provided : "there shall be a provision for free passes
for freedom fighters only. There may be a provision of monthly/quarterly passes
valid in all the private buses on a particular route." Even the permit
condition No. 13 declared : "the permit holder shall ensure that concessional
passes issued to various sections authorised for these buses shall be honoured."
A fair reading of these conditions of permit would be that the STA would
approve the issuing of concessional passes by the transport operator and
indicate the conditions subject to which such concessional passes are approved.
Even in the Scheme of 2002, the relevant condition of the permit reads as
under:
"13.
The permit holder shall ensure that concessional passes issued to various
sections authorised for these buses shall be honoured." The contention of
the respondents that by reason of the aforesaid condition of permit the concessional
passes issued by the DTC would automatically become enforceable and binding
upon private operators who were issued stage carriage permits, does not appear
to be sustainable.
In Anjum
M.H. Ghaswala a Constitution Bench of this Court reaffirmed the general rule
that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a
particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner
provided in the statute itself. (See also in this connection Dhanajaya Reddy v.
State of Karnataka) The statute in question requires
the authority to act in accordance with the rules for variation of the
conditions attached to the permit. In our view, it is not permissible to the
State Government to purport to alter these conditions by issuing a notification
under Section 67(1)(d) read with sub-clause (i) thereof.
The
contention of the respondents is that the power to enforce the binding nature
of the concessional passes issued by the DTC on the private stage carriage
operators can be spelled from the provisions of Section 67(1)(d) of the Act. In
our view, such a power cannot be subsumed under the powers of the State
Government to fix fares and freights for stage carriages having regard to the
desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among holders of permits.
Permit condition No. 13 merely stipulates that the permit holder shall ensure
that concessional passes issued to various sections authorised for these buses
shall be honoured. The authorisation has to come from the STA. In other words,
only concessional passes which are authorised by the STA would be binding on
the operators.
We see
no power in Section 67(1)(d) of the Act or otherwise by which a concessional
pass issued by the DTC could be made binding upon private stage carriage
operators, particularly when there was no such condition imposed in the permit
issued. Hence, we are of the view that Paragraph 3(b) of the impugned
notification is clearly ultra vires the powers of the State Government under
Section 67 of the Act and, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.
Appellants
contend that the condition imposed upon the appellants of honouring all DTC
passes is nothing but a covert attempt to subsidise the losses being incurred
by DTC. Even if we assume that the losses are not on account of mismanagement
or inefficiency of the DTC, and are really attributable to the so called honouring
of its "social obligations", we see no warrant or justification,
under the provisions of the Statute as it stands, for transferring this assumed
responsibility to competing transport operators. If the state authorities are
of the view that the fare structures should be identical for all operators
including the DTC, we see no justification for this indirect method of passing
on the costs to the appellant operators.
In the
first place, we are unable to accept that all concessional passes issued are
necessarily in the discharge of "social obligations", as claimed. A
perusal of the operational statistics of the DTC, which is placed on record as
Annexure P-9 to the writ petition filed before the High Court, (pp. 64, 66 and
68) justifies the contention of the appellants. From the operational statistics
we notice that nearly 48 per cent of the persons travelling in the DTC buses
were pass holders in April, 1998 and this figure has gone to about 68 per cent
in November, 1999. While it may be possible to say that granting of concessional
passes to war widows and their dependants, disabled persons, freedom fighters
and such categories may be in discharge of "social obligations", it
would not hold true with regard to a large number of other holders of concessional
passes. In the writ petition before the High Court, the appellants pointed out
that 'destination passes', 'general passes' and 'all route' passes are nothing
but smart exercises designed to catch captive commuters. These passes are
really intended to collect advance fares which would save commuters the trouble
of frequently going to the office of the operator for paying for their passes
by offering a marginal concession. In other words, a large amount of the fare
gets collected, much in advance, and what the DTC has to forego is only a small
amount designed to cut down the collection cost, get money in advance and catch
captive commuters. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the appellants
that such concessional passes are nothing but advance tickets with marginal
concessions giving services to the captive commuters. The attempt of the DTC
through the STA and the State Government now appears to be to ensure that even
service is not required to be given to all the captive commuters holding such concessional
passes by DTC, by requiring the private operators to provide service to the
pass holders who have paid to the DTC. We see no discharge of "social
obligations", nor even the shadow of Article 38 of the Constitution, in
this arrangement which is sought to be brought into force by resort to the
purported power under Section 67 of the Act. If the DTC incurs losses in its
running, it is bailed out by the State Government by subsidies and convenient
loans which are written off; but, on the other hand, private operators have to
raise capital at enormous servicing cost and do not have finance or subsidy on
tap. The learned counsel for the appellants is right in contending that this is
clearly an attempt to rob Peter to pay Paul.
In our
view, the condition imposed in Paragraph 3(b) of the impugned notification is
ultra vires the power of the State Government under Section
67. It
is not possible for us to accept the view of the High Court that Section
67(1)(d) read with sub-clause (i) thereof clothes the State Government with the
power to impose the condition in Paragraph 3(b) of the impugned notification
dated 31st December, 1999, or that it has been imposed having regard to
"the desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among holders of
permits" within the meaning of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 67
of the Act. The directions which can be issued under sub-clause (i) are only
with regard to 'fares and freights'. The expression 'fare' has been defined in
Section 2(12) as inclusive of sums payable for a season ticket or in respect of
the hire of a contract carriage. By Paragraph 2 of the impugned notification
the Transport Department has also prescribed what can be the fares for concessional
bus passes of different categories. This only means that, if the permit holders
were to issue concessional bus passes for different categories including
'students', 're-settlement colony', 'press', and 'old age', then the fares
chargeable are at the rates indicated in Paragraph 2. This is a perfectly
permissible exercise of power.
The
High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sree Gajanana Motor
Transport Co. Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. , arising under Section
43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to the effect that when the State has
exercised its power under Section 43 (corresponding to the present Section 67
of the 1988 Act), then the conditions of the permit automatically get altered.
There is no doubt as to this proposition, but the rub is that the notification
must have been validly issued in exercise of the said power. Paragraph 3(b) of
the impugned notification, however, travels much beyond the legitimate scope of
the power under Section 67(1)(d) read with sub-clause (i). We are of the view
that the impugned notification, insofar the condition in Paragraph 3(b) is
concerned, is wholly ultra vires the powers of the State Government under
Section 67 of the Act, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.
Learned
counsel for the appellants stated that they too are conscious of the
"social obligations", and since the number of concessional passes
issued to disabled persons, freedom fighters and war widows and their
dependants is small, without prejudice to their legal contentions, they are
willing to honour such concessional passes issued by DTC.
In the
result, we hold that the condition imposed in Paragraph 3(b) of the impugned
notification is ultra vires of the powers of the State Government and is,
therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. However, it appears to us that
sudden discontinuation of the concessional passes would seriously affect the
commuters, particularly students community, holding a large number of concessional
passes issued by the DTC. We are, therefore, of the view that some locus poenitentia
should be given to the respondents to make alternative arrangements by
formulating an appropriate scheme in accordance with law which should take care
of the student concessional passes.
In the
result, we make the following order:-
(1)
The provisions of the impugned notification dated 31st December, 1999, except paragraph 3(b), are held valid and intra vires;
(2)
The condition imposed under Paragraph 3(b) of the impugned notification is held
ultra vires, illegal and unenforceable;
(3)
The appellants, as agreed, shall continue to honour the concessional passes
issued by DTC to disabled persons, freedom fighters, war widows, and their
dependants;
(4)
The respondents shall lawfully bring forth an appropriate scheme to provide
relief to the students concessional pass holders of DTC, within a period of
four months from today, i.e., on or before 31st July, 2004, failing which the
condition imposed under Paragraph 3(b) of the impugned notification shall stand
quashed and set aside with effect from 1st August, 2004.
The
judgment of the High Court is modified and the appeal is allowed to the aforegoing
extent.
There shall
be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
