Delhi High Court: In a case wherein petition was filed stating that the drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis were being prosecuted and heavily challaned for not wearing uniforms when there was no clarity on the colour of uniform, specification of fabric, design, and the nature of fabric to be used by the drivers, the Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ., and Subramonium Prasad, J.*, opined that the colour and the description of the uniform for the drivers of vehicles running within the State was prescribed under Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 (‘DMV Rules’) and the colour and the uniform as specified, which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) were specific and there was no ambiguity. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and held that it did not find any reason to strike down Rule 7 of the DMV Rules and permit which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act.
Background
The petitioners had filed the present petition praying that, (a) Rule 7 of Delhi Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 should be struck down, and (b) quash any condition of any permit issued by Respondent 1 in relation of uniform required to be worn by the drivers of transport vehicles.
It was submitted by the petitioners that Respondent 1 had brought out the DMV Rules, in which Rule 7 prescribed that the driver of a public service vehicle other than driver of State Transports Undertaking, while on duty, must wear khaki uniform with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it. On the other hand, the permit conditions specified by the Deputy Commissioner, Auto Rickshaw Unit, which was the Regional Transport Authority had prescribed that the driver must wear uniform in grey colour as prescribed by the State Transport Authority, Delhi and the driver must wear a Public Service Vehicle Badge on his/her left side of the uniform. It was further stated that permit conditions were being issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act wherein it was prescribed that drivers of tourist vehicles must wear white uniform in summers and blue or grey uniform in winters.
Thus, due to lack of clarity on the said subject, the petitioners submitted that Rule 7 of the DMV Rules which mandated khaki uniform to be worn by the drivers with a name plate in Hindi affixed on it must be struck down and also the permit conditions under Section 88(11)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act must be struck down. It was also contended that no uniform was necessary for the drivers of auto rickshaws and taxis and only they should be asked to wear badges to disclose their identity. It was also submitted that the rules and the permit conditions apart from being completely vague and manifestly arbitrary, there was no reasonable nexus between the rules/permit conditions and the object that was sought to be achieved, which was identification of the driver.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that Section 28(2)(d) of the MV Act gave specific power to the State Government to make Rules prescribing badges and uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles and fees to be paid in respect of badges for the purpose of the drivers who were driving contract carriage within the State. The power of the State Government to make Rules in respect of badges and uniform for drivers of transport vehicles was within the State, therefore, could not apply to other States.
The Court further observed that Section 88 of the MV Act dealt with permits for transport vehicles which were used within the State and outside the State and Section 88 of the MV Act stated that a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any region was not valid in any other region, unless the permit had been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region in which the vehicle would ply, and a permit granted in one State would not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State or by the Regional Transport Authority in which the transport vehicle would ply. The Court opined that reading of Sections 28 and 88 of the MV Act showed that both the Sections operated entirely in different spheres and Section 28 dealt with permit for transport vehicles plying within the State whereas Section 88 dealt with permits which were issued for transport vehicles plying in more than one State. Thus, the Court held that Rule 7 of the DMV Rules need not be struck down as it is not contrary to any of the provisions of the MV Act.
The Court further opined that the submission of the petitioners that the power of prescribing uniform for drivers of auto rickshaws and taxi was per se arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution could not be accepted as specific powers had been given to the State Government and the Central Government to lay down conditions subject to which permits could be issued. The Court further opined that the fact that there were different shades available in the same colour and, therefore, this leads to vagueness and was manifestly arbitrary also could not be accepted. The Court also opined that the colour and the description of the uniform for the drivers of vehicles running within the State was prescribed under Rule 7 of the DMV Rules and the colour and the uniform as specified, which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act were specific and there was no ambiguity.
The Court observed that “an executive order and for that matter even a legislation could be challenged as unreasonable if it violated the principles of equality as laid down in the Constitution or it restricted any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of our Constitution”. The Court opined that the petitioners had not been able to make out any case as to how Rule 7 of the DMV Rules was so manifestly arbitrary and therefore, only by stating that there could be several shades of khaki or that it did not state whether it should be a pant-shirt or kurta-pajama or the nature/details of stitching etc., did not make the provisions vague.
The Court opined that Rule 7 of the DMV Rules only prescribed that a driver must wear a khaki uniform with a name plate. Similarly, the permit which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act prescribed for the colour of a uniform for a driver of tourist vehicle for summer and winter months. Thus, the Court held that it could not be said that Rule 7 of the DMV Rules or the permit which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act was arbitrary or violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court relied on Shayara Bano v. Union of India (‘Shayara Bano’), (2017) 9 SCC 1, wherein the test of manifest arbitrariness had been explained by the Supreme Court and it was observed that “manifest arbitrariness must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something was done which was excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary”. The Court opined that the challenge to Rule 7 of the DMV Rules and permit which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act, did not meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano (supra). The Central Government had the power to make rules under Section 88 of the MV Act and the State Government had power to make rules under Section 28 of the MV Act.
Therefore, the competence of the Central Government to issue notifications under Section 88 of the MV Act for tourist vehicles and the competence of State Government to lay down rules for uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles in Delhi by exercising its powers under Section 28 of the DMV Rules could not be questioned. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that there was no requirement of a uniform, and the prescription of uniform was vague or arbitrary and was violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, could not be accepted.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that it did not find any reason to strike down Rule 7 of the DMV Rules and permit which had been issued under Section 88(11)(ii) of the MV Act.
[Chaalak Shakti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3896, decided on 4-7-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Aman Agarwal, Madhav Bhatia, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Standing Counsel; T.P. Singh, Senior Central Govt. Counsel; Arun Panwar, Pradyumn Rao, Mehak Rankawat, Karthik Sharma, Advocates; ASI Kanwar Singh, Pairvi Officer, Traffic Police.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
