Raushan Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners, including truck owner associations and individual truck owners, filed writ petitions challenging a notification dated December 16, 2020, issued by the Transport Department of the Government of Bihar. This notification imposed restrictions on intra and inter-state traffic for vehicles with 14 wheels or above. The petitioners argued that this notification violated constitutional provisions related to free trade and commerce, and that the State lacked the legislative competence to impose such restrictions on National Highways. The State and the Union of India were respondents. The petitions were heard together by the Patna High Court.

Held

The Court held that the power under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be stated to be wider than Article 301 of the Constitution of India and cannot facilitate a ban on interstate traffic. The State lacks legislative competence to restrict the use of National Highways, as these fall under the Union Government's legislative control. The impugned notification was found to fail the proportionality test for reasonable restrictions under Article 19, as there were alternate means to achieve the goal and the necessity analysis was not satisfied. The Court also found that the State Government overstepped its power under Section 115 by issuing the notification on an issue where the Central Government had already legislated under Sections 58 and 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notification dated December 16, 2020, and all consequential actions. The Court also issued directions for the proper implementation of Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, including ensuring sufficient traffic personnel, regulating laden weight on bridges and roads, making weighbridges available, and displaying prescribed weight limits on road signs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the power under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is wide enough to impose a complete ban on intra and inter-state traffic with vehicles having 14 wheels or above, and if this power is subject to Article 301 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the State possesses the legislative competence to restrict the use of National Highways? 3. Whether the impugned notification qualifies as a reasonable restriction under Article 19 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the State can issue directions on an issue upon which the Central Government has already legislated, in the interest of public safety? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the notification violated Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. They argued that Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not override this constitutional guarantee. Furthermore, they asserted that the Union Government legislatively controls National Highways, and the State lacked the competence to impose such restrictions. They also argued that the notification was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19 and that the State had overstepped its powers by legislating on a matter already covered by the Central Government. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding these specific issues.