Muttha Workers Co-ordination Committee, Rep. by Its Convenor and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - the vehicles carrying essential and perishable commodities like milk, vegetables, fruits and medicines are, however, permitted round the clock with specific permission of the commissioner. he would urge that in all the metropolitan cities like hyderabad and chennai, though the restrictions on the movement of heavy vehicles were imposed and though such restrictions have been upheld by the courts, the total prohibition of movement of heavy vehicles was never imposed. most of the petitioners herein as well as a large number of members of the merchants association have their wholesale business establishments in wards 1 to 5. therefore, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that wholesale business is not permissible in i-town area. we, however, would like to make it clear that having regard to the growing needs of a living city, it is always open to the commissioner of police to regulate the traffic. indeed, pedestrianisation of certain areas is one of the devices for controlling the traffic as well as keeping the air pollution levels to the minimum. ), commissioner of police, madras, issued notification prohibiting the plying of slow moving vehicles like handcarts, bullock carts, jutkas, hand and cycle rickshows and bullock trucks on mount road, madras. , except i town area, and therefore, the petitioners cannot complain the violation of fundamental right. inasmuch as a scheme framed by the assistant commissioner of police is in operation, the effect of the same needs to be observed by the petitioners as well as the respondents at least for some time. till such time, the arrangement indicated in the letter, dated 21-2-2005, issued by the assistant commissioner of police as well as the one indicated by this court in relation to entry of vehicles between 11 p.orderv.v.s. rao, j.1. this common order deals with above three writ petitions. first two writ petitions were listed on 27-9-2006 for admission. after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned assistant government pleader for home, this court reserved the matters for consideration of orders. subsequently, claiming similar relief, w. p. no. 22386 of 2006 was filed, which was listed before this court on 30-10-2006. after hearing the submission of the learned senior counsel, the writ petition was reserved for orders as earlier two writ petitions were already under consideration.2. the commissioner of police, vijayawada, issued notification, dated 2-9-2006, in exercise of powers under section 31 of the police act, 1861 prohibiting heavy goods vehicles (trucks, for brevity) above five (5) tonnage from entering into vijayawada city for loading and unloading of goods from midnight of 3-9-2006 onwards except as provided in the said notification. while prescribing cut off points where barricades, which provided the commissioner of police also notified that mini vans (four wheelers with short body) are allowed to enter into vijayawada during non-peak hours (12 noon to 2.00 p.m., and 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m.) only for loading and unloading of goods with specific permission issued by the commissioner. the vehicles carrying essential and perishable commodities like milk, vegetables, fruits and medicines are, however, permitted round the clock with specific permission of the commissioner. the commissioner issued a clarification in proceedings, dated 7-9-2006, modifying the notification, dated 2-9-2006, to the effect (i) that vehicles carrying various goods are allowed to enter the city limits during 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m., in the night without any permission; and (ii) that no vehicles are permitted in i town area. in first two writ petitions, the two proceedings of the commissioner are assailed as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 19, 19(1)(g) and 21 of constitution of india. in other writ petition, notification, dated 2-9-2006 alone is challenged.3. muttha workers co-ordination committee (hereafter called, the committee) filed the writ petition no. 20293 of 2006 and vijayawada mini transport owners welfare association (hereafter called, the transport association) filed writ petition no. 20294 of 2006. w.p. no. 22386 of 2006 is filed by vijayawada lorry owners association (hereafter called, lorry association). the committee, which was formed in 2005, is allegedly espousing the interest of 20,000 muttha workers, who stately eke out the livelihood by attending to loading and unloading of goods into trucks of various sizes. the committee alleges that the commissioner issued similar proceedings on 17-12-2004. the same was challenged before this court when the commissioner gave undertaking to evolve a scheme and based on which, the writ petition was closed. in the meanwhile, this court upheld the action of the officials in directing the wholesale merchants from i town area to shift to gollapudi shopping complex in the outskirts of the vijayawada city. some of the wholesale merchants and daily parcel offices association filed writ appeals and the division bench ordered status quo and therefore, the petitioners contend that the order of the commissioner is in violation of the high court orders. it is also urged that in the earlier writ petitions, when the assistant commissioner submitted a scheme to this court, liberty was given to all the aggrieved to make representations and that the petitioner also made a representation, which is pending. the lorry association also made similar allegations by making reference to the earlier writ petition decided by the learned single judge based on the report submitted by the assistant commissioner of police. the lorry association also raised additional grounds which are referred to infra at appropriate place.4. the case of the transport association, in brief, is as follows. when the commissioner issued similar proceeding in 2004, considering the representation of the association, it was promised that mini vans will be allowed in the city without restrictions and therefore, the proceedings were not challenged. though mini vans are permitted during non-peak hours, the same is not workable as loading itself will take two hours and for the mini vans to move from one end to another end, it will take one hour. the commissioner therefore issued proceedings without considering all these aspects.5. learned counsel for the committee, sri k.s. murthy and the learned counsel for the transport association, sri p. prabhakara rao, submit that the commissioner prohibited heavy trucks from entering i town area even though the orders of status quo passed by the division bench are in force. secondly, he would urge that the impugned action of the respondents in selectively imposing restrictions on the movement of goods vehicle above five (5) tons to vijayawada is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner committee under article 19(1)(g) and 21 of constitution of india. sri s. satyanarayana prasad, learned senior counsel for lorry association submits that if the entry of the lorries into vijayawada is totally prohibited beyond certain cut off points, the same would violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of constitution of india. he also submits that section 31 of the police act and rule 57 of the traffic rules, 1962 do not empower commissioner of police to prohibit the use of a class of vehicles totally. he would urge that in all the metropolitan cities like hyderabad and chennai, though the restrictions on the movement of heavy vehicles were imposed and though such restrictions have been upheld by the courts, the total prohibition of movement of heavy vehicles was never imposed. he would contend that restriction of movement of lorries and trucks with reference to the places and timings cannot be equated to the total prohibition of such movement of vehicles, which would ex facie violate the fundamental right of the members of the petitioner association under article 19(1)(g) of constitution of india. according to learned senior counsel, it is only the appropriate authority under motor vehicles rules, who can impose such restrictions on the movement of vehicles. though the learned senior counsel has filed compilation consisting of xerox copies of as many as fourteen judgments, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions except a couple of them.6. learned assistant government pleader for home opposes the writ petition contending that the impugned order was issued in accordance with the earlier orders of this court duly considering all aspects of the matter and the heavy vehicles were prohibited in i town area, which is residential area keeping in view the judgment of this court in kanigalla venkata subba rao v. vice-chairman, vgtm urban development authority : 2006(5)ald442 .7. the commissioner of police issued the impugned notification in exercise of powers under section 31 of the police act, which reads as under:31. police to keep order in public roads, etc.: it shall be the duty of the police to keep order on the public roads, and in the public streets, thoroughfares, ghats and landing-places, and at all other places of public resort, and to prevent obstructions on the occasions of assemblies and processions on the public roads and in the public streets or in the neighborhood of places of worship, during the time of public worship, and in any case when any road, street, thoroughfare, ghat or landing-place may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed. 8. a plain reading of the provision would show that section 31 of the police act is wide enough to include all aspects of regulating the use of public roads, public streets, thoroughfares etc. it would be impossible to enumerate all possible orders that might be necessary to keep the public roads and public streets in order. control of movement of persons, vehicles (animal driven, mechanical and motor driven), conduct of business, use of footpaths, use of carriageway, facilities and conveniences to be provided on the public roads etc., can all come within the purview of section 31 of the police act. importantly, section 31 of the police act casts a duty on the police to keep order on the public street. the commissioner also refers to rule 57 of a.p. traffic rules, which reads as under:57. one-way roads:the commissioner of police in the cities of hyderabad and secunderabad and the superintendent of police, concerned in the districts may prohibit the use of any vehicle or class of vehicles on any road otherwise than in a direction specified by a sign, or by a notice on a notice board, placed, erected or displayed at or near the entrance to such road.no person shall use any such vehicle or class of vehicles on any such road otherwise than in direction specified by such sign or notice.9. rule 57 of the traffic rules empowers the commissioner of police or superintendent of police to prohibit the use of any vehicle or class of vehicles on any road otherwise than in a direction specified by sign. that is to say, one-way traffic can be imposed and such imposition of movement of traffic in one-way and prohibiting the traffic in the opposite direction cannot be faulted. the only requirement is that the commissioner is under an obligation to specify a sign or a notice erected or displayed at the entrance of the road informing the users of the road about one way traffic. when any action is taken by the commissioner of police with a view to keep the order of public roads in vijayawada city, the same cannot be treated or termed as arbitrary merely because some inconvenience is caused to a group with a particular avocation or calling. keeping order on the public roads would certainly involve some inconveniences to the users of the road. while regulating such use, it is quite possible that there would be restrictions on the exercise of rights of those who use the roads. unless and until such restrictions totally prohibit human activity not on the road, but in the city, the discharge of duty cannot be called illegal or arbitrary. the impugned notification prohibits heavy trucks above five (5) tonnage from entering vijayawada city for loading and unloading. even while doing so, the commissioner fixed cut off points, which only means that all the heavy trucks above five (5) tonnage can come in vijayawada only up to those cut off points and cannot traverse beyond the same. secondly, mini vans are permitted during non-peak hours i.e., 12 noon to 2.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. as an exception to this rule, however, vehicles carrying the essential and perishable commodities are allowed round the clock on all the roads, which only means the commissioner has given due importance to the convenience, comfort and facilities required by all the citizens of vijayawada. such an exercise of power can never be treated as arbitrary.10. by impugned notification, the commissioner totally prohibited the goods vehicles in i town area. does it violate any law, much less the fundamental right of any citizen? there is no denial that i town area -to a large extent; is earmarked as residential zone as per zoning regulations of vijayawada urban development authority. as per the relevant regulations, no wholesale commercial activity or business is permissible in the residential zone.11. in kanigalla venkata subba rao 2006 (5) alt 361 (supra), after referring to various statutes dealing with municipalities/municipal corporations, urban authorities and urban zoning regulations, this court summarized the legal position as under:1. under a.p. municipalities act and building rules in schedule iii to the act read with a.p. municipalities layout rules, municipal commissioner cannot grant/sanction building permission unless it is shown that the building permission is sought in the land for a purpose, which is approved in the layout. it any construction is made in contravention of this principle, it is permissible under law to demolish the building after issuing notice, passing provisional order and passing final order as contemplated under section 228 of the municipalities act.2. in addition to imposing penalties for breach and contravention, and in addition to an order of demolition of the building in contravention of a zonal development plan, it is also permissible for the urban authority to take action under section 43(2) and (3) of the act by taking the assistance of a police officer to stop development in breach of the act and master plan/zonal plan.3. either under the municipal zoning regulations or urban authority zoning regulations, the wholesale markets and wholesale business is not permissible in residential use zone or buildings, in sea zone. buildings intended for residential purpose, cannot be converted as premises for commercial purpose, much less for wholesale business as storage of commodities.12. in the same judgment, dealing with i town area of vijayawada municipal corporation, this court observed as under:municipal ward nos.1 to 7 of vijayawada municipal corporation are included in i-town of vijayawada. as per the master plan prepared prior to coming into force of urban development act (prepared by director of town planning). this area is earmarked as a residential zone. there is no dispute that as per the master plan for vijayawada except a small portion in wards 6 and 7 in i town area, the entire extent is residential area. most of the petitioners herein as well as a large number of members of the merchants association have their wholesale business establishments in wards 1 to 5. therefore, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that wholesale business is not permissible in i-town area. learned standing counsel for urban development authority has placed before this court the approved zonal development plan of vijayawada showing the existing land use in i town area. a specific averment is made in the counter affidavit of urban development authority to that effect. though a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, the same is not denied. 13. in view of the above, when wholesale business itself is not permissible in i town area, there cannot be any question of loading or unloading of the goods and other commodities in i town area. of course, as noticed, the commissioner by notification, dated 7-9-2006, permitted all vehicles carrying various goods during the night time between 11.00p.m. and5.00a.m. without permission, which itself is a reasonable restriction and does not in any manner violate the fundamental rights of anybody under article and 21 of constitution of india. further more, all vehicles carrying essential and perishable commodities are allowed and therefore, no inconvenience can be caused to the people. the clarification issued by the commissioner on 7-9-2006 is also in tune with the observations made by division bench of this court in state of a.p. v. mini taxi owners and drivers association, hyderabad : 2001(4)ald245 .14. in mini taxi owners and drivers association : 2001(4)ald245 , the notification issued by the hyderabad city police commissioner totally prohibited seven-seater auto rickshaws in the twin cities of hyderabad and secunderabad. the same was assailed before this court. the learned single judge of this court set aside the notification issued by the commissioner of hyderabad police. the division bench dismissed the state's appeal making, i, the following observations.we, however, would like to make it clear that having regard to the growing needs of a living city, it is always open to the commissioner of police to regulate the traffic. while doing so, it is also permissible for the commissioner to even prohibit the plying of traffic on selected roads having regard to the main activities that are carried on with reference to the road, with reference to the time or with reference to the speed of the vehicles. indeed, pedestrianisation of certain areas is one of the devices for controlling the traffic as well as keeping the air pollution levels to the minimum. in such an event, there should be proper material before the commissioner to prohibit traffic either on the ground that it is a national highway and slow moving traffic is impermissible or for the reason that it is dangerous to allow such of the vehicles on such of the roads which the commissioner feels it appropriate having regard to his powers referable to section 21 of the police act. 15. in state of madras v. murray & co. : air1965mad301 (d.b.), commissioner of police, madras, issued notification prohibiting the plying of slow moving vehicles like handcarts, bullock carts, jutkas, hand and cycle rickshows and bullock trucks on mount road, madras. the learned single judge quashed the said notification as not being a reasonable restriction under article 19(6) of constitution of india. on appeal by the state, the division bench of madras high court upheld the decision of learned single judge while agreeing with the observations made by the leamed singh judge that the commissioner of police can always regulate the time during which such slow moving vehicles should be allowed to pass and also regulate the weight and capacity of such carts. the division bench judgment in state of madras v. murray & co. : air1965mad301 would show that prohibition of plying of vehicles on roads would violate the fundamental right under article 19(1)(g) of constitution of india but restrictions as to the weight/capacity of the vehicles and the time during which such vehicles can ply on the roads can always be treated as a reasonable restriction. the commissioner of police, vijayawada has already issued another notification on 7-9-2006 in continuation of notification, dated 2-9-2006, permitting all vehicles during 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m., except i town area, and therefore, the petitioners cannot complain the violation of fundamental right.16. the commissioner of police issued a notification vide proceedings, dated 17-12-2004, under section 31 of the police act, which also prohibited all heavy trucks about five tons from entering vijayawada city beyond cut off points, allowed mini vans only during non-peak hours and prohibited plying of goods vehicles in certain areas of vijayawada. this was challenged before this court by vijayawada trade association, vijayawada goods transport association and muttha workers co-ordination committee (petitioner in w.p. no. 20293 of 2006). this court initially passed interim orders directing that goods vehicles shall be permitted to enter the city between 4.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. as directed by this court, the assistant commissioner of police, vijayawada submitted proposals/ scheme vide letter dated 12-12-2005 inter alia identifying certain roads on which movement of goods vehicles can be permitted during certain fixed hours during the day. four routes were identified on which movement of goods vehicles can be permitted during 12 noon to 2.00 p.m. noticing this, this court disposed of the writ petition observing as under:the scheme framed by the assistant commissioner of police had resulted in redressal of grievances of the petitioners to a substantial extent. the petitioners further contend that the commissioner be directed to open certain other routes also and increase the time for movement of the vehicles. this court is not prepared to accede to the request. inasmuch as a scheme framed by the assistant commissioner of police is in operation, the effect of the same needs to be observed by the petitioners as well as the respondents at least for some time. it shall always be open to the petitioners to make representations pointing out their grievances and in such an event, the commissioner can take appropriate decision duly taking into account the views of the concerned persons and agencies.hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to make representations pointing out their grievances in relation to the movement of the goods vehicles in the vijayawada town. on receipt of the same, the commissioner of police, vijayawada, shall pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representations, duly taking into account the views of the persons and agencies concerned. till such time, the arrangement indicated in the letter, dated 21-2-2005, issued by the assistant commissioner of police as well as the one indicated by this court in relation to entry of vehicles between 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. shall remain in force. there shall be no order as to costs.(emphasis supplied)17. a reading of the two notifications impugned in these writ petitions and the order passed by this court on 21-3-2005 in w.p. nos. 24475 of 2005 and batch referred to hereinabove would show that the commissioner of police issued the two notifications duly keeping in view the observations made by this court. as noticed, except in the area where wholesale business is not permitted as per the zoning regulations, all goods vehicles are permitted to ply on the roads in vijayawada subject to certain restrictions regarding the cut off points and timings as mentioned in the two notifications. the same, having regard to the larger public interest, does not amount to arbitrariness or unreasonableness.18. the writ petitions are misconceived and are accordingly disposed of observing that vehicles of members of petitioners in w.p. no. 20294 and 22386 of 2006 cannot be prohibited from plying in vijayawada between 11.00 p.m. and 5.00 a.m. without permission, subject to other conditions imposed in the two notifications issued by commissioner of police, vijayawada, on 2-9-2006 and 7-9-2006. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. This common order deals with above three writ petitions. First two writ petitions were listed on 27-9-2006 for Admission. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this Court reserved the matters for consideration of orders. Subsequently, claiming similar relief, W. P. No. 22386 of 2006 was filed, which was listed before this Court on 30-10-2006. After hearing the submission of the learned senior counsel, the writ petition was reserved for orders as earlier two writ petitions were already under consideration.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, issued notification, dated 2-9-2006, in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the Police Act, 1861 prohibiting heavy goods vehicles (trucks, for brevity) above five (5) tonnage from entering into Vijayawada City for loading and unloading of goods from midnight of 3-9-2006 onwards except as provided in the said notification. While prescribing cut off points where barricades, which provided the Commissioner of Police also notified that mini vans (four wheelers with short body) are allowed to enter into Vijayawada during non-peak hours (12 noon to 2.00 p.m., and 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m.) only for loading and unloading of goods with specific permission issued by the Commissioner. The vehicles carrying essential and perishable commodities like milk, vegetables, fruits and medicines are, however, permitted round the clock with specific permission of the Commissioner. The Commissioner issued a clarification in proceedings, dated 7-9-2006, modifying the notification, dated 2-9-2006, to the effect (i) that vehicles carrying various goods are allowed to enter the city limits during 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m., in the night without any permission; and (ii) that no vehicles are permitted in I town area. In first two writ petitions, the two proceedings of the Commissioner are assailed as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India. In other writ petition, Notification, dated 2-9-2006 alone is challenged.

3. Muttha Workers Co-ordination Committee (hereafter called, the Committee) filed the writ petition No. 20293 of 2006 and Vijayawada Mini Transport Owners Welfare Association (hereafter called, the Transport Association) filed Writ Petition No. 20294 of 2006. W.P. No. 22386 of 2006 is filed by Vijayawada Lorry Owners Association (hereafter called, Lorry Association). The Committee, which was formed in 2005, is allegedly espousing the interest of 20,000 muttha workers, who stately eke out the livelihood by attending to loading and unloading of goods into trucks of various sizes. The Committee alleges that the Commissioner issued similar proceedings on 17-12-2004. The same was challenged before this Court when the Commissioner gave undertaking to evolve a scheme and based on which, the writ petition was closed. In the meanwhile, this Court upheld the action of the officials in directing the wholesale merchants from I town area to shift to Gollapudi shopping complex in the outskirts of the Vijayawada City. Some of the wholesale merchants and Daily Parcel Offices Association filed Writ Appeals and the Division Bench ordered status quo and therefore, the petitioners contend that the order of the Commissioner is in violation of the High Court orders. It is also urged that in the earlier writ petitions, when the Assistant Commissioner submitted a scheme to this Court, liberty was given to all the aggrieved to make representations and that the petitioner also made a representation, which is pending. The Lorry Association also made similar allegations by making reference to the earlier writ petition decided by the learned single Judge based on the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The Lorry Association also raised additional grounds which are referred to infra at appropriate place.

4. The case of the Transport Association, in brief, is as follows. When the Commissioner issued similar proceeding in 2004, considering the representation of the Association, it was promised that mini vans will be allowed in the city without restrictions and therefore, the proceedings were not challenged. Though mini vans are permitted during non-peak hours, the same is not workable as loading itself will take two hours and for the mini vans to move from one end to another end, it will take one hour. The Commissioner therefore issued proceedings without considering all these aspects.

5. Learned counsel for the Committee, Sri K.S. Murthy and the learned Counsel for the Transport Association, Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, submit that the Commissioner prohibited heavy trucks from entering I town area even though the orders of status quo passed by the Division Bench are in force. Secondly, he would urge that the impugned action of the respondents in selectively imposing restrictions on the movement of goods vehicle above five (5) tons to Vijayawada is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of the Members of the petitioner Committee under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India. Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior counsel for Lorry Association submits that if the entry of the lorries into Vijayawada is totally prohibited beyond certain cut off points, the same would violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India. He also submits that Section 31 of the Police Act and Rule 57 of the Traffic Rules, 1962 do not empower Commissioner of Police to prohibit the use of a class of vehicles totally. He would urge that in all the metropolitan cities like Hyderabad and Chennai, though the restrictions on the movement of heavy vehicles were imposed and though such restrictions have been upheld by the Courts, the total prohibition of movement of heavy vehicles was never imposed. He would contend that restriction of movement of lorries and trucks with reference to the places and timings cannot be equated to the total prohibition of such movement of vehicles, which would ex facie violate the fundamental right of the members of the petitioner Association under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. According to learned senior counsel, it is only the appropriate authority under Motor Vehicles Rules, who can impose such restrictions on the movement of vehicles. Though the learned senior counsel has filed compilation consisting of Xerox copies of as many as fourteen Judgments, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions except a couple of them.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home opposes the writ petition contending that the impugned order was issued in accordance with the earlier orders of this Court duly considering all aspects of the matter and the heavy vehicles were prohibited in I town area, which is residential area keeping in view the Judgment of this Court in Kanigalla Venkata Subba Rao v. Vice-Chairman, VGTM Urban Development Authority : 2006(5)ALD442 .

7. The Commissioner of Police issued the impugned notification in exercise of powers under Section 31 of the Police Act, which reads as under:

31. Police to keep order in public roads, etc.: It shall be the duty of the police to keep order on the public roads, and in the public streets, thoroughfares, ghats and landing-places, and at all other places of public resort, and to prevent obstructions on the occasions of assemblies and processions on the public roads and in the public streets or in the neighborhood of places of worship, during the time of public worship, and in any case when any road, street, thoroughfare, ghat or landing-place may be thronged or may be liable to be obstructed.

8. A plain reading of the provision would show that Section 31 of the Police Act is wide enough to include all aspects of regulating the use of public roads, public streets, thoroughfares etc. It would be impossible to enumerate all possible orders that might be necessary to keep the public roads and public streets in order. Control of movement of persons, vehicles (animal driven, mechanical and motor driven), conduct of business, use of footpaths, use of carriageway, facilities and conveniences to be provided on the public roads etc., can all come within the purview of Section 31 of the Police Act. Importantly, Section 31 of the Police Act casts a duty on the police to keep order on the public street. The Commissioner also refers to Rule 57 of A.P. Traffic Rules, which reads as under:

57. One-way roads:The Commissioner of Police in the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the Superintendent of Police, concerned in the Districts may prohibit the use of any vehicle or class of vehicles on any road otherwise than in a direction specified by a sign, or by a notice on a notice board, placed, erected or displayed at or near the entrance to such road.

No person shall use any such vehicle or class of vehicles on any such road otherwise than in direction specified by such sign or notice.

9. Rule 57 of the Traffic Rules empowers the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police to prohibit the use of any vehicle or class of vehicles on any road otherwise than in a direction specified by sign. That is to say, one-way traffic can be imposed and such imposition of movement of traffic in one-way and prohibiting the traffic in the opposite direction cannot be faulted. The only requirement is that the Commissioner is under an obligation to specify a sign or a notice erected or displayed at the entrance of the road informing the users of the road about one way traffic. When any action is taken by the Commissioner of Police with a view to keep the order of public roads in Vijayawada City, the same cannot be treated or termed as arbitrary merely because some inconvenience is caused to a group with a particular avocation or calling. Keeping order on the public roads would certainly involve some inconveniences to the users of the road. While regulating such use, it is quite possible that there would be restrictions on the exercise of rights of those who use the roads. Unless and until such restrictions totally prohibit human activity not on the road, but in the city, the discharge of duty cannot be called illegal or arbitrary. The impugned notification prohibits heavy trucks above five (5) tonnage from entering Vijayawada City for loading and unloading. Even while doing so, the Commissioner fixed cut off points, which only means that all the heavy trucks above five (5) tonnage can come in Vijayawada only up to those cut off points and cannot traverse beyond the same. Secondly, mini vans are permitted during non-peak hours i.e., 12 noon to 2.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. As an exception to this Rule, however, vehicles carrying the essential and perishable commodities are allowed round the clock on all the roads, which only means the Commissioner has given due importance to the convenience, comfort and facilities required by all the citizens of Vijayawada. Such an exercise of power can never be treated as arbitrary.

10. By impugned notification, the Commissioner totally prohibited the goods vehicles in I town area. Does it violate any law, much less the fundamental right of any citizen? There is no denial that I town area -to a large extent; is earmarked as residential zone as per Zoning Regulations of Vijayawada Urban Development Authority. As per the relevant Regulations, no wholesale commercial activity or business is permissible in the residential zone.

11. In Kanigalla Venkata Subba Rao 2006 (5) ALT 361 (supra), after referring to various statutes dealing with municipalities/municipal corporations, urban authorities and urban zoning regulations, this Court summarized the legal position as under:

1. Under A.P. Municipalities Act and Building Rules in Schedule III to the Act read with A.P. Municipalities Layout Rules, Municipal Commissioner cannot grant/sanction building permission unless it is shown that the building permission is sought in the land for a purpose, which is approved in the layout. It any construction is made in contravention of this Principle, it is permissible under law to demolish the building after issuing notice, passing provisional order and passing final order as contemplated under Section 228 of the Municipalities Act.

2. In addition to imposing penalties for breach and contravention, and in addition to an order of demolition of the building in contravention of a Zonal Development Plan, it is also permissible for the Urban Authority to take action under Section 43(2) and (3) of the Act by taking the assistance of a police officer to stop development in breach of the Act and master plan/zonal plan.

3. Either under the Municipal Zoning Regulations or Urban Authority Zoning Regulations, the wholesale markets and wholesale business is not permissible in residential use zone or buildings, in sea zone. Buildings intended for residential purpose, cannot be converted as premises for commercial purpose, much less for wholesale business as storage of commodities.

12. In the same Judgment, dealing with I town area of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, this Court observed as under:

Municipal Ward Nos.1 to 7 of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation are included in I-Town of Vijayawada. As per the master plan prepared prior to coming into force of Urban Development Act (prepared by Director of Town Planning). This area is earmarked as a residential zone. There is no dispute that as per the master plan for Vijayawada except a small portion in wards 6 and 7 in I Town area, the entire extent is residential area. Most of the petitioners herein as well as a large number of members of the merchants association have their wholesale business establishments in wards 1 to 5. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that wholesale business is not permissible in I-Town area. Learned Standing Counsel for Urban Development Authority has placed before this Court the approved Zonal Development Plan of Vijayawada showing the existing land use in I town area. A specific averment is made in the counter affidavit of Urban Development Authority to that effect. Though a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, the same is not denied.

13. In view of the above, when wholesale business itself is not permissible in I town area, there cannot be any question of loading or unloading of the goods and other commodities in I town area. Of course, as noticed, the Commissioner by Notification, dated 7-9-2006, permitted all vehicles carrying various goods during the night time between 11.00p.m. and5.00a.m. without permission, which itself is a reasonable restriction and does not in any manner violate the fundamental rights of anybody under Article and 21 of Constitution of India. Further more, all vehicles carrying essential and perishable commodities are allowed and therefore, no inconvenience can be caused to the people. The clarification issued by the Commissioner on 7-9-2006 is also in tune with the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Mini Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, Hyderabad : 2001(4)ALD245 .

14. In Mini Taxi Owners and Drivers Association : 2001(4)ALD245 , the notification issued by the Hyderabad City Police Commissioner totally prohibited seven-seater auto rickshaws in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The same was assailed before this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court set aside the notification issued by the Commissioner of Hyderabad Police. The Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal making, i, the following observations.

We, however, would like to make it clear that having regard to the growing needs of a living city, it is always open to the Commissioner of Police to regulate the traffic. While doing so, it is also permissible for the Commissioner to even prohibit the plying of traffic on selected roads having regard to the main activities that are carried on with reference to the road, with reference to the time or with reference to the speed of the vehicles. Indeed, pedestrianisation of certain areas is one of the devices for controlling the traffic as well as keeping the air pollution levels to the minimum. In such an event, there should be proper material before the Commissioner to prohibit traffic either on the ground that it is a National Highway and slow moving traffic is impermissible or for the reason that it is dangerous to allow such of the vehicles on such of the roads which the Commissioner feels it appropriate having regard to his powers referable to Section 21 of the Police Act.

15. In State of Madras v. Murray & Co. : AIR1965Mad301 (D.B.), Commissioner of Police, Madras, issued notification prohibiting the plying of slow moving vehicles like handcarts, bullock carts, jutkas, hand and cycle rickshows and bullock trucks on Mount Road, Madras. The learned single Judge quashed the said notification as not being a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of Constitution of India. On appeal by the State, the Division Bench of Madras High Court upheld the decision of learned single Judge while agreeing with the observations made by the leamed singh Judge that the Commissioner of Police can always regulate the time during which such slow moving vehicles should be allowed to pass and also regulate the weight and capacity of such carts. The Division Bench Judgment in State of Madras v. Murray & Co. : AIR1965Mad301 would show that prohibition of plying of vehicles on roads would violate the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India but restrictions as to the weight/capacity of the vehicles and the time during which such vehicles can ply on the roads can always be treated as a reasonable restriction. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada has already issued another Notification on 7-9-2006 in continuation of Notification, dated 2-9-2006, permitting all vehicles during 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m., except I town area, and therefore, the petitioners cannot complain the violation of fundamental right.

16. The Commissioner of Police issued a notification vide proceedings, dated 17-12-2004, under Section 31 of the Police Act, which also prohibited all heavy trucks about five tons from entering Vijayawada city beyond cut off points, allowed mini vans only during non-peak hours and prohibited plying of goods vehicles in certain areas of Vijayawada. This was challenged before this Court by Vijayawada Trade Association, Vijayawada Goods Transport Association and Muttha Workers Co-ordination Committee (petitioner in W.P. No. 20293 of 2006). This Court initially passed interim orders directing that goods vehicles shall be permitted to enter the city between 4.00 p.m. and 4.00 a.m. As directed by this Court, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada submitted proposals/ scheme vide letter dated 12-12-2005 inter alia identifying certain roads on which movement of goods vehicles can be permitted during certain fixed hours during the day. Four routes were identified on which movement of goods vehicles can be permitted during 12 noon to 2.00 p.m. Noticing this, this Court disposed of the writ petition observing as under:

The scheme framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police had resulted in redressal of grievances of the petitioners to a substantial extent. The petitioners further contend that the Commissioner be directed to open certain other routes also and increase the time for movement of the vehicles. This Court is not prepared to accede to the request. Inasmuch as a scheme framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police is in operation, the effect of the same needs to be observed by the petitioners as well as the respondents at least for some time. It shall always be open to the petitioners to make representations pointing out their grievances and in such an event, the Commissioner can take appropriate decision duly taking into account the views of the concerned persons and agencies.

Hence, the writ petitions are disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to make representations pointing out their grievances in relation to the movement of the goods vehicles in the Vijayawada town. On receipt of the same, the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, shall pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representations, duly taking into account the views of the persons and agencies concerned. Till such time, the arrangement indicated in the letter, dated 21-2-2005, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police as well as the one indicated by this Court in relation to entry of vehicles between 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. shall remain in force. There shall be no order as to costs.

(emphasis supplied)

17. A reading of the two notifications impugned in these writ petitions and the order passed by this Court on 21-3-2005 in W.P. Nos. 24475 of 2005 and batch referred to hereinabove would show that the Commissioner of Police issued the two notifications duly keeping in view the observations made by this Court. As noticed, except in the area where wholesale business is not permitted as per the Zoning Regulations, all goods vehicles are permitted to ply on the roads in Vijayawada subject to certain restrictions regarding the cut off points and timings as mentioned in the two notifications. The same, having regard to the larger public interest, does not amount to arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

18. The writ petitions are misconceived and are accordingly disposed of observing that vehicles of members of petitioners in W.P. No. 20294 and 22386 of 2006 cannot be prohibited from plying in Vijayawada between 11.00 p.m. and 5.00 a.m. without permission, subject to other conditions imposed in the two notifications issued by Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, on 2-9-2006 and 7-9-2006. No costs.