Reasonable Measure To Avoid Chaos In Office Hours: HC Upholds Restriction On Non-Essential Heavy/Medium Goods Vehicles' Movement In Kolkata Between 6am-10pm

The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld the validity of a Traffic Notification that restricted the movements of Heavy Goods Vehicles and Medium Goods Vehicles have been restricted to ply from 6 am to 10 am on all days throughout the city of Kolkata except the Port area.

The notification however, made certain exceptions for goods vehicles carrying essential and perishable items such as LPG, Petroleum, Oxygen, Milk, Fruits, Vegetables, etc., which were allowed to ply from 10 pm-8 am and 12 pm-4 pm.

In dismissing a challenge to the notification by real-estate developer Merlin Projects Ltd., a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

Restrictions imposed by the Notification are not disproportionate. The stipulations introduced by the Notification are quite appropriate and necessary to ensure free movement of traffic and in order to avoid chaos during office hours in a large city like Kolkata as well as to maintain safety of its citizens which would be jeopardized if heavy vehicles treaded the roads of the city during busy hours, except for transport of essential and perishable commodities as mentioned in the Notification. Hence, the restrictions are neither disproportionate nor do they totally deprive the real estate businesses.

The petitioners challenged the notification citing that they were real estate developers who needed to utilize Transit Concrete Mixtures, which fell into the category of Heavy Goods Vehicles, required for transporting Ready Mixed Concrete (RMC) from manufacturing plants to sites of construction.

It was argued that RMC had a lifespan of two hours and that per KMC rules, it could not be used between sunset and sunrise, but only during the day when the transit of vehicles transporting it was debarred.

It was also argued that the plants where RMC was manufactured could not operate during the night due to various restrictions.

Petitioners stated that due to the restriction on transporting RMC, and on the operation of the plants, the entire use of RMC and construction through it stood virtually debarred for all practical purposes.

It was argued that the restriction on the use of RMC was violative of the petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Petitioners said that essential commodities had been permitted under the notification and that the unreasonable distinction against the transport of RMC was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Counsel for the State argued that RMC was one of the options for construction and not essential and that it was merely used by the petitioners to earn profit.

It was submitted that the notification only made an exception for perishable and essential commodities and that traffic restrictions had to be implemented keeping in mind public safety due to gruesome accidents that occurred in the past, including when a schoolboy was hit by a loaded truck.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court observed that the notification had been challenged under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

It noted that while Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g) provided the right to free movement and carrying on trade, respectively, Article 19(6) imposed reasonable restrictions on the same in the interest of the general public. Court held:

There cannot be any doubt that the Traffic Notification impugned herein falls within the exceptions enumerated in sub-clauses (5) and (6) of Article 19. Not only does the Traffic Notification impose restriction in the interest of general public, the premise of such Notification is sufficiently reasonable. 

It was held that for the test of reasonableness, the Court would test the action on the basis of the reasonableness of a prudent man, and that sufficient justification had been furnished by the State to support the notification.

Not only is such restriction absolutely essential for regulating the pandemonium during such busy hours and to ensure smooth traffic movement and commute of the citizens, such restrictions are also an integral part of safety measures taken for office goers, school and college going children and the public at large. In fact, sufficient relaxations have been made for transport of essential and perishable commodities by carving out appropriate exceptions in the Notification, it said.

Court concluded that the effect of the notification did not entail stopping real estate construction in the city altogether, and that RMC was only one of the type of concretes used during construction, and not essential in any manner.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 38

Case: Merlin Projects Limited and another v The State of West Bengal and others

Case No: W.P.A. No. 433 of 2024