K. Valliammal and Another vs Deputy Commissioner for Traffic and Licensing

K. Veeruswami, C.J.—The Appellants are two different owners of hand-carts, and, appeal from a common order of Ramakrishnan J.,

declining to give a rule restraining the Deputy Commissioner of Police for Traffic and licensing, Vepery, Madras, from enforcing the provisions of

the Madras Hackney Carriage Act, 1911 in respect of those carts. As the question is common to both the Appeals, it will suffice to notice the facts

in Writ Petition No. 4218 of 1965.

The Petitioner was carrying on business in the manufacture of aerated water and distribution to consumers under the name and style of A.N.

Rajan and Co. For purposes of distributing aerated water bottles to consumers the Petitioner owned and used hand-carts drawn by men engaged

by the Petitioner. She asserted that she did not own hand-carts for hiring to the public and this has not been denied by the Deputy Commissioner.

The Petitioner was told in July 1965, that has hand-carts should have to be registered and licences obtained under the Madras Hackney Carriage

Act. But the Petitioner contended that the provisions of the Act had no application. As this contention was not accepted by the Deputy

Commissioner, she applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, like the other on the ground that the

definition of hackney carriage in the Act included any hand-cart irrespective of whether it plied for hire or not. The correctness of this view is

canvassed in the appeals.

It being not in dispute that the hand-carts owned by the Appellants are not used or meant to be used for hire, the only question for decision is

whether such hand-carts would be governed by the provisions of the Hackney Carriage Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, which did

not include a cycle-rickshaw, as amended in 1964, in order to include is Madras Act XXI of 1964, further amended the definition to include any

hand-cart not owned by the State Government. The definition, as in force at the relevant time, reads:

3(3) ''Hackney Carriage'' means

(a) any hand-cart, not by the State Government:

(b) any wheeled vehicle (including a cycle-rickshaw), not owned by the State Government.

(i) Is drawn, pushed or propelled by a man, or is drawn by a horse, bullock or other animal

(ii) is used for the Conveyance of any purpose

(iii) stands or plies for hire by the hour of day or according to distance.

As a result of the amendment of the preamble portion of the definition, which categorises the type of vehicles included in the definition, the question

arises whether the requirements in Clauses (i) to (iii), particularly the last one, govern the category of hand-cart. Ramakrishnan J., thought that a

hand-cart, for purposes of the definition and in order to come within it, need not satisfy the three conditions. He was of the view that the various

provisions of the Act would be applicable to the particular kind of carriage according to whether the conditions (i) to (iii) govern it or not. We are

of the view that there is no warrant for this construction.

In the definition of the hackney carriage the mere addition of the types of carriages to the ambit of the definition cannot detract from the requisite

that the carriage so added should also be used as a hackney. The definition, as it originally stood, clearly indicated that the vehicle or carriage, in

order to come within its ambit, should be plied for hire. Madras Act XXI of 1964, did no more than include any hand-cart not owned by the State

Government, but did not mean that it could be a hand-cart though not used as a hackney. That any vehicle to come within the definition should be

used as a hackney is not merely obvious from the word hackney but also from the conditions mentioned in the definition, one of which is that the

carriage stands or plies for hire by the hour or day or according to distance. The recasting of the opening part of the definition did not alter this

position.

No doubt, if the expression any hand-cart stood by itself, it would take in any cart of that description without limitation with reference to the

nature of its use. But, the ambit of the expression, as it seems to us, is clearly limited by the object and context of the entire provisions of the Act.

The object is to amend and declare the law relating to hackney carriage. Hackney in this context, qualified the character of the carriage sought to

be brought within the ambit of the Act. Under the Act every hackney carriage is compulsorily required to be registered and for that purpose, it is

liable to inspection. But registration u/s 6 is also permitted to be limited in the discretion of the Commissioner. The transfer of a hackney carriage,

the residential address of the owner, the place where it is kept, should be notified to the prescribed authority. The driver of the carriage should take

out a licence. The owner of a hackney carriage who knowingly suffers any person, not duty licensed under this Act, to act as a driver is exposed to

a penalty and fine. There are other regulations controlling the driver as that he should wear a badge and failure to do so would involve a penalty.

Fares are fixed by the Commissioner and so too hiring and plying for hire are regulated. The most important provision is Section 38 which

prescribes a penalty for refusing to let the hackney carriage for hire. These regulatory provisions appear to be conceived in public interest and the

necessity for regulation arises from the fact that the use and hire of hackney carriages should be subject to control in order to prevent misuse of

hackney carriages and causing inconvenience to the public.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the object of Madras Act XXI of 1964, in including hand-carts in the definition of hackney

carriages was to limit their number with a view to ultimately do away with them. But Section 3, which is already there, provides for limiting the

number of vehicles. That cannot be a reason for putting into the definition of hackney carriages any kind of carriage which is not used as a hackney.

In our view, therefore, a hand-cart, which is not a hackney, is not governed by the provisions of the Hackney Carriage Act.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. We find that the prayer in the petitions has been rather widely worded. Rule will issue as asked for, but

confined to hand-carts owned by each of the Petitioners which are not used as hackney carriages. There will be no order as to costs.