H. R. KHANNA, C. J. ( 1 ) ON 4/09/1968, the District Magistrate of Delhi, passed an. order under section 33 of the Bombay Policeact as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi, the material partof which reads as under :- "whereas there is very heavy congestion onboulevard Road, Zorawar Singh Road. Chowk Subzimandi. Rani Jhansi Road. Alipur Road from Kashmere Gate to itsjunction with Ring Road and Mori Gate round about whichis likely to cause serious accidents involving danger to thelives of persons using these roads and serious obstructionto the flow of traffic :and WHEREAS it is necessary to ensure the safety ofsuch persons and convenience to the public:now, therefore. I, B. N. Tandon, District Magistrate. Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under section 33 of the Bombay Police Act. as extended to the Unionterritory of Delhi, do hereby order as follows :-All passenger buses, starting from the Inter-state Busterminal and going out of Delhi will not be allowed to plyon these roads. They will, however, ply on the routes mentioned below:- (i) Buses going towards Karnal side will take Ring Roadturn right on Alipur Road at its junction with Ringroad, Mall Road and G. T. Road. (ii) Buses going towards Rohtak side will take Ringroad turn right on Alipur Road at its junction withring Road. Mall Road, G. T. Road and Rohtakroad. (iii) Buses going towards Gurgaon side will take ringroad. Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg at its junction withring Road. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road. Faiz Road. Upper Ridge Road and Gurgaon Road. While coming into the Interstate Bus Terminal from outside Delhi the passenger buses will follow the same routein reverse order. " ( 2 ) THE present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Delhi Ex-Servicemen Co-operative Multipurpose Transport Society and three others for quashingthe above order. The petitioners are transport operators and each oneof them holds a stage carriage permit for plying a passenger bus service on the route between Delhi and Badli. Badli is situated inharyana at a distance of about two kilometres from Delhi-Haryanaborder. Prior to the promulgation of the above order, all the motorbuses plying for transport of passengers between Delhi and areas andplaces outside the Union Territory of Delhi had their starting andterminal points near Delhi Railway Station. Badli is situated inharyana at a distance of about two kilometres from Delhi-Haryanaborder. Prior to the promulgation of the above order, all the motorbuses plying for transport of passengers between Delhi and areas andplaces outside the Union Territory of Delhi had their starting andterminal points near Delhi Railway Station. The petitioners busesused to ply from Railway Station Bus Stand via Subzi Mandi, Rohtakroad. As a result of the impugned order, petitioners buses go torohtak Road via Ring Road, Mall Road and G. T. Road. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH a number of grounds, have been given in the petition,mr. Dalal on behalf of the petitioners has at the time of the hearingassailed the impugned order on two grounds. It is urged that theimpugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuchas the petitioners buses are not permitted to ply on Boulevard Roadand other roads mentioned in the opening part of the impugned order. no such restriction has been placed upon the buses of the Delhitransport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the DTU buses ). The second ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the impugned order could not be made under section 33 of the Bombay Policeact as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi but could have beenmade only under section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is,in our opinion, no merit in cither of these two contentions. ( 4 ) WE may first take up the second contention, according to whichthe impugned order could not be made under section 33 of thebombay Police Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. Therelevant part of section 33 (l) (b ). as extended to the Union Territoryof Delhi, reads as under : "33. (1) The District Magistrate may make, alter orrescind rules or order not inconsistent with this Act for- (b) regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and publicplaces, and the use of streets and public places bypersons riding, driving, cycling, walking or leadingor accompanying cattle, so as to prevent danger, obstruction or inconvenience to the public: ( 5 ) THE above provision of law confers power upon the District Magistrate inter alia to make order not inconsistent with the Act for regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places, and the use of allstreets and public places by persons driving so as to prevent danger. obstruction or inconvenience to the public. obstruction or inconvenience to the public. It would, therefore. follow that with a view to prevent danger, obstruction or inconvenienceto the public, the District Magistrate can make an order for regulating traffic of any kind in streets. Shri B. N. Tandon. District Magistrate of Delhi, has in this connection filed his affidavit and it wouldappear therefrom that on 16/09/1967, he issued an orderfor regulating the traffic on various routes and roads with a view torelieve congestion for safety of general public during certain hoursof the day. In spite of that order, the congestion on Boulevardroad, Chowk Subzimandi, Zorawar Singh Road and other roads mentioned in the beginning of the impugned order did not case and therestill remained likelihood of serious accidents, involving danger to thelives of the persons using those roads. The affidavit further showsthat till such time as the impugned order was made there used to beheavy cogestion of vehicular traffic on Boulevard Road and the otherroads mentioned in the beginning of the impugned order. It was witha view to eliminate that heavy congestion of traffic on the said roadsand thereby to prevent occurrence of serious accidents involving dangerto the lives of persons using those roads and also to overcome theserious obstruction to the heavy flow of traffic that the District Magistrate passed the impugned order. As a result of the impugned order,all passenger buses carrying passengers bound for destinations in areasoutside the Union Territory of Delhi are required not to use the aforesaid roads but are diverted along other roads inside the Union Territory. We find no particular reason to question the above avermentscontained in the affidavit of Shri Tandon. Those averments clearlypoint to the conclusion that the imugned order is designed to preventserious accidents involving danger to the lives of persons using thoseroads and also to prevent serious obstruction to the flow of traffic. Not much argument is needed to show that the diversion of passenger buses proceeding to places outside the Union Territory of Delhiis bound to relieve the congestion of heavy traffic on roads mentionedin the impugned order and thus reduce the hazards to the life andsafety of those using the said roads. The words "regulating traffic"used in section 33 (l) (b) would comprehend the control of trafficas is envisaged in the impugned order. The words "regulating traffic"used in section 33 (l) (b) would comprehend the control of trafficas is envisaged in the impugned order. The dictionary meaning ofthe words "regulate" is "to control by rule", and, in our opinion, theimpugned order can legally be issued under section 33 of the Bombaypolice Act as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. ( 6 ) SECTION 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to which reference hasbeen made on behalf of the petitioners, deals with the grant of stagecarriage permits by the Regional Transport Authority. According tosub-section (2) of that section, every stage carriagepermit shall beexpressed to be valid only for a specified route or routes or for aspecified area. Sub-section (3) of that section specifies the conditions which may be attached to the permit by the Regional Transportauthority if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit. One of theconditions as contemplated by clause (xxi) of that sub-section is thatthe Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of notless than one month, vary the conditions of the permit. It is, in ourview. not necessary to express an opinion on the point as to whetherthe Regional Transport Authority under the above provision of lawcould change the route for which stage carriage permit had been issuedto the petitioners. We have in any case no doubt in our mind thatthe District Magistrate was well within his power to make the impugnedorder. The fact that as a result of the impugned order the incomeof the petitioners by plying their buses from Delhi to Badli and backhas gone down would not affect the validity of the impugned orderif it is shown otherwise to have been made in accordance with law. ( 7 ) AS regards the other contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch asthe impugned order does not apply to DTU buses, we find that theaffidavit of Shri Tandon shows that the DTU buses carry passengertraffic within the limits of the Union Territory of Delhi along prescribed routes. It would lead to considerable hardship and inconvenience to the general public if the DTU buses are prevented fromplying on the roads on which they normally carry passenger trafficbetween different destinations within the Union Territory of Delhi. As against that, the petitioners buses carry passenger traffic to placesand areas outside the Union Territory of Delhi. It would lead to considerable hardship and inconvenience to the general public if the DTU buses are prevented fromplying on the roads on which they normally carry passenger trafficbetween different destinations within the Union Territory of Delhi. As against that, the petitioners buses carry passenger traffic to placesand areas outside the Union Territory of Delhi. The affidavit furthershows that the petitioners are entitled to pick up and set down passengers on Delhi-Badli route on places such as Shakurbasti, Nangloi,randola, Najafgarh and Mitraon. It is stated that so far as thepassengers travelling by the petitioners buses are concerned, it is immaterial to them by which particular road or routes their buses go outof the Union Territory of Delhi and the impugned order would notcause any hardship or inconvenience to those passengers. We havegiven the matter our consideration and are of the opinion that theimpugned order makes a rational and reasonable classification betweentransport operators like the petitioners who ply their vehicles betweendelhi and places outside Delhi on the one hand and the Delhi Transport Undertaking which is a public utility concern plying passengervehicles for the convenience of the general public residing within theunion Territory of Delhi on the other. The above classification isbased on an intelligible differentia which has a rational relation tothe object sought to be achieved, namely, the relieving of congestionof vehicular traffic in order to prevent serious accidents endangering human life. It is now well-established that while Article 14 forbidsclass legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification. In orderto pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must befulfilled, namely (i) that the classification must be founded on anintelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that aregrouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that thedifferentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to beachieved by the statute or order in question. The classification maybe founded on different basis, namely, geographical, or according toobjects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that theremust be a nexus between the basis of classification and the objectof the Act or order under consideration. See Ram Krishna Dalmiav. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 (1 ). We would, thereforehold that the impugned order is not violative of Article 14 of the-Constitution. What is necessary is that theremust be a nexus between the basis of classification and the objectof the Act or order under consideration. See Ram Krishna Dalmiav. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 (1 ). We would, thereforehold that the impugned order is not violative of Article 14 of the-Constitution. ( 8 ) IT may also be stated that the validity of the earlier order dated 16/09/1967, made under section 33 of the Bombay Policeact, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi by the Districtmagistrate, was challenged in Sukhdev Sahai and others v. Districtmagistrate, Delhi and another. Civil Writ No. 577of 1970 (2), decidedby a Division Bench (Hardy and Ansari, J. J.) on 24/12/1970. The writ petition was dismissed and it was held that the impugnedorder was not in excess of the powers conferred upon the Districtmagistrate by the above provision of law. ( 9 ) THE petition consequently fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.