Respondents, by their communication/circular issued instructions to all the subordinate authorities under the Act to ensure that there was no luggage carried on the roof of the vehicles, as the same was not permissible under law, thus, the checking authorities started imposing and collecting fines to the tune of 1500/- for each entry and exit from the transporters for carrying goods on the roof of vehicles with tourist permits - writ petition filed - High Court dismissed the petition and held that transporters could only provide luggage space at the rear or the sides of a tourist vehicle as mandated by Rule 128(9), and no luggage could be carried on the roof of the vehicle - Appeals - Supreme Court - The language of the Rule is clear and unambiguous, no other construction need be resorted to understand the plain language of the sub-Rule (a) of Rule 128 of the Rules - The restriction imposed by the Rule is a reasonable restriction keeping in view the safety of the passengers in a tourist vehicle - Rule cannot be said either arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of Article 19(1)(g) - Appeal dismissed.

Topic(s)-

Important Decision(s)-