Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P., AIR, 1955 SC 781

Introduction

With the help of this case, the Doctrine of Eclipse was announced and introduced in India. It was an important case law. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, of 1939, the State Government had designated the power to govern or regulate the transportation and implementation of it in the State of M.P., the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle Act was constituted. This case challenged the Constitutional Validity of the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act 1947 and legalized the disputed act.

Facts of the Case

Provincial Transport Company Limited and C.P. Transport Services were the companies located in the State of Madhya Pradesh. These companies were the major private transport companies in that area, and the unit held approximately 85% of the share capital in the market, which gave the government the exclusive power to effect and control the public sector’s transport business. Five petitions were filed under Article 32 of the constitution of India, and the petitioners had filed them before the C.P. and Berar Act, 1947. The petitioners were authorized to continue their carriage assignments under the Motor Vehicle Act, of 1939. The execution and relevance of the C.P. Berar Act would influence the fundamental rights of several citizens working in the transportation business and would also hand over extensive powers to the state to regulate the business.

Issue Raised

1. Whether or not the C.P. and Berar Amendment Act was constitutionally valid.
2. Whether Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution was violated by the act or not.

Contention by the Parties

The Petitioner argued that the C.P. Berar Amendment Act should be declared invalid as it contravenes Article 19 (1) (f) of the constitution of India. The act is void because it is unconstitutional. The Petitioner further argued that it interdicts the people from initiating their vehicles in the business of transport and it violates the citizen’s right to property thus violating Article 31 of the constitution of India

The Respondent argued that the First Constitutional Amendment Act, of 1951 eliminated the lack of consistency in the Act. The Fundamental rights of the citizens of India under Article 19 are subject to some restrictions mentioned under clauses 2 to 6 of the same articles. That was the first amendment of the constitution to Article 19 (6) which enforces the limitation on the Fundamental Rights of the citizen to exercise any occupation, trade, business, or profession. The Act does not violate the Fundamental Rights of the citizens, the law has been made keeping in mind the benefit of the public. This law also controls the state to become the monopoly so it can work for the common man. Hence, it does not violate the Constitution of India so the petition should be dismissed.

Judgment

The Court stated that if the amendment of the constitution did not exist then the question in the act would have been stated void as it obstructs the right of the citizen to exercise any business, carry on trade, or profession. But the first Constitutional Amendment came into existence in 1951 and the act in question was eliminated which was controlling of monopoly by the state in transport or Carriage business. The Court further observed that Article 19 (6) was not contemplative in nature, therefore, it cannot be implemented for the rights and liabilities that appear between 26^th January 1950 and 18^th June 1955. However, after the amendment, the limitations and restrictions are applicable to all citizens. The Court stated that the petition had been filed on 27^th May 1955 while the defect of the act was itself cleared away on 27^th April 1955.

Reference

https://indiankanoon.com.org

https://lawpleanet.in

https://www.legalserviceindia.com

Written by Vipasha Mehta, Intern at Legal Vidhiya

Admin