Ban On Inter-State Bus Transportation Amid Covid-19: Madhya Pradesh High Court DB Upholds Single Judge Order Declining Interference

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea challenging ban on inter-state bus transportation amid Covid-19, by observing that prohibition on vehicular movement falls within reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. It also declined interference on the ground of alleged discrimination with railway and air traffic, which are allowed to operate. A division bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anil Verma was dealing with a plea filed by MP Bus Operator Association challenging a single judge order declining to interfere with various Government orders restricting inter-state bus transportation between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, owing to the rising number of Covid-19 cases in the latter state.The single judge had observed that in the extraordinary situation of a pandemic or disaster involving loss of life and human suffering, the Central Government as well as the State Government are empowered to put any restriction in the larger public interest under the Disaster Management Act, including restriction of movement of public by inter-state bus transportation.It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that there was no reasonable classification or object sought to be achieved by putting restriction on vehicular transport, especially when railways and air movement is allowed between Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh on a regular basis. Further, that such restriction infringes fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.It was also submitted that State is authorized to 'regulate travel' and 'regulation', by no stretch of imagination can be equated with 'restriction'. Thus, complete ban on transport movement was impermissible.On the other hand, it was argued by the State Government that in view of the rising Covid-19 cases, the orders were issued by the State in exercise of powers under the Disaster Management Act."The argument on first blush appears to be attractive but lost much of its shine when examine in the teeth of statutory provision namely section 24 of the Act, 2005. Section 24 (a) and (b) leaves no room for any doubt that it gives ample power to "Control and Restrict vehicular traffic". In our view, the statutory provision is wide enough to impose complete ban or completely control or restrict the vehicular movement," the Court said.The Single Judge had declined interference on the following counts: (i) The railways and airways are under the domain of the Central Government and on which the State Government cannot put any restrictions;(ii) Transportation through airways and railways the entry and exit points of passengers are fixed and known from where the passengers can be checked about their health conditions but it is not possible in the transportation by buses;(iii) Government is reviewing the situation after the interval of 10-15 days and extending the restrictions for limited period. Except Maharashtra the petitioners are permitted to ply the buses in other part of the country, therefore, there is no 100% restrictions on the right of trade and business.Agreeing with the observation of the single judge, the Court observed that it rightly declined interference on the policy decision of the government."The appellant could not establish that impugned orders are illegal, irrational or outcome of any procedural impropriety. The prohibition on vehicular movement falls within the ambit of reasonable restriction as per Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Hence, we find no reason to interfere in this writ appeal," the Court observed.The appeal was accordingly dismissed.Title: M.P. Bus Operator Association v. State of M.P.Click Here To Read Order

Ban On Inter-State Bus Transportation Amid Covid-19: Madhya Pradesh High Court DB Upholds Single Judge Order Declining Interference

Nupur Thapliyal

Buses can be stopped anywhere and collect passengers which is not possible in railways and airways, therefore, both are different classes of transportation, the Single Judge had ruled.

Tags