Judgment :- 1. The challenge in these original petitions is against the complaint card system introduced by the City Traffic Police for the passengers of the auto-rickshaws. Printed cards addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Cochin are issued to the passengers. If the passengers have any complaint of excess charge demanded, meter not working, refuse to carry him in the vehicle, misbehaviour by the driver etc. they can fill up the card and send it by post to the addressee. The Assistant Commissioner after due enquiry and if satisfied that the complaint is genuine, will initiate action against the driver This is the system envisaged. The Ist petitioner in O.P. No. 8985 of 1982 is the Ernakulam District Autorickshaw Drivers' Union, the 2nd petitioner an autorickshaw driver and the 3rd petitioner an autorickshaw passenger. 2. A "Face to Face" programme was conducted by the Cochin Jaycees in September as part of the "Jaycee Week" this year. People from all walks of life including Press representatives actively participated in the programme. One of the problems that came up for discussion was the "Autorickshaw/Taxi menace". Some of the participants suggested that the complaint card system prevalent in Delhi, Hyderabad and other cities should be implemented in the City of Cochin also. The Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police who were present welcomed the suggestion. The Cochin Jaycees followed up the suggestion and as a result of further discussions with the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) they came forward with the complaint cards. The Traffic Police began to distribute the complaint cards to the autorickshaw passengers from 6th November, 1982 onwards. As a protest, the autorickshaw drivers started a strike from 7th November, 1982 onwards. 3. It was when the strike was on, that these original petitions were filed. Along with the original petitions, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were moved for a direction to the Traffic Police to stop further distribution of complaint cards pending the original petitions. After hearing the counsel on both sides, this court gave a direction that pending the original petitions the Police need not stop a running autorickshaw merely for handing over a complaint card. 4. In O. P. No 8985 of 1982 it is stated: The increase in the number of private buses and overload of these vehicles have adversely affected the income of the autorickshaw drivers. 4. In O. P. No 8985 of 1982 it is stated: The increase in the number of private buses and overload of these vehicles have adversely affected the income of the autorickshaw drivers. The Traffic Police is not taking any prompt action to check this. At the same time, the Police is harassing autorickshaw drivers unnecessarily by calling them to the Police Stations and detaining their vehicles there. The service of the autorickshaw drivers is essential to the public who cannot go for a taxi car. The 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), with the connivance of the Cochin Jaycees, has prepared complaint cards and has started distributing the same. As a protest against the unauthorised action, autorickshaw drivers have entered on a strike. The 3rd petitioner is a passenger who travelled in an autorickshaw from the Jose junction on 6-11-1982. At the Congress House junction a traffic constable stopped the vehicle and gave Ext. P-1 complaint card to him. The driver of the autorickshaw did not violate any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. The 3rd petitioner expressed to the constable who handed over the card, his displeasure. According to the petitioners, the distribution of the complaint cards is illegal and not backed by any Government Order and hence liable to be declared as illegal. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic). In the counter-affidavit it is stated: There has been a lot of complaints from the passengers and the public against the drivers of the auto-rickshaws demanding fare in excess of the approved rates, using of defective meters and misbehaviour. The total number of cases charged against autorickshaw drivers for various offences in the year 1982 upto 16-11-1982 is 453 whereas the total number of cases in the year 1981 was only 142. The Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam has issued stop memos to 45 autorickshaws this year for running with defective taxi meters. To meet the situation it was felt necessary to take effective steps to prevent the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and the conditions of the permit by the autorickshaw drivers and also to protect the passengers from harassment by the autorickshaw drivers. To meet the situation it was felt necessary to take effective steps to prevent the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and the conditions of the permit by the autorickshaw drivers and also to protect the passengers from harassment by the autorickshaw drivers. According to R.56 (2) (p) the driver of a public service vehicle while on duty shall not demand or collect fare in excess of the rate fixed by the Government from time to time. S.78, 86, 87, 88, 128,129 and 129 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act and R.261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules give ample power to the Police Officers to take necessary steps for preventing the violations of the law by the autorickshaw drivers and for taking action against them. Hence it was decided to introduce the system of distributing complaint cards to the passengers. The Police is not inducing any passenger to fill up the complaint card and post it to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. They need send the cards only if they have any genuine complaint against the driver. There is no room for arbitrary or high-handed action on the part of the Police. At the conferences held on 14th and 18th of November, 1982 it was decided that the complaints will be handled by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) himself. There is sufficient safeguards against false complaints being entertained by the Police. No provision of law has been violated by the distribution of the complaint cards. None of the rights of the petitioners under the Constitution of India is infringed. There is no harm in voluntary organisations printing and supplying the complaint cards. Action is being taken against private buses also for violating the law. Autorickshaw drivers are not called to the Police Stations on flimsy grounds. The complaint card system was introduced in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam. The Police Authorities have received representations congratulating them for the laudable step they have taken by introducing the complaint card. The passengers have only welcomed the action of the respondents. The complaint cards have been distributed to the passengers of taxi cars also. After calling off the strike the autorickshaw drivers have again started demanding very exorbitant charges from the passengers and complaint cards were received from two passengers on 20-11-1982. 6. The passengers have only welcomed the action of the respondents. The complaint cards have been distributed to the passengers of taxi cars also. After calling off the strike the autorickshaw drivers have again started demanding very exorbitant charges from the passengers and complaint cards were received from two passengers on 20-11-1982. 6. O.P. No. 8933 of 1982 has been filed by one Xavier, Convenor of the City Autorickshaw Drivers Organising Committee. The President, Cochin Jaycees has been impleaded as the 5th respondent in the Original Petition. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed along with this Original Petition the first respondent. Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) has filed a counter affidavit justifying the card system. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended: There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules which authorises the issue of complaint cards. As the authorities have only the powers vested in them under the law governing the matter the card system introduced by the police is illegal. At any rate a police constable cannot stop a running autorickshaw for handing over the complaint card as it will be against R.56(1) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Not only that the fundamental rights of the autorickshaw drivers under Art.19(1)(j) will also be infringed. Introduction of the complaint cards to the passengers of autorickshaws only without extending this system to the passengers of taxi cars and buses is a clear discrimination under Art.14 of the Constitution. Without the complaint cards also action can be taken against the autorickshaw drivers who violate the law. Going by the statistics given in the counter affidavit filed, violations of law by the drivers have happened only in a very few cases and hence there is no excuse for the introduction of the card system which will put the drivers at the mercy of the passengers. The card system will also be misused. 8. The Liaison Officer who appeared for the City Police contended: There was widespread complaints from the public against the autorickshaw drivers. The complaint cards are issued to check the violation of law by the drivers. An autorickshaw driver who is a law abiding citizen cannot have any complaint against the card system. The card system will also be misused. 8. The Liaison Officer who appeared for the City Police contended: There was widespread complaints from the public against the autorickshaw drivers. The complaint cards are issued to check the violation of law by the drivers. An autorickshaw driver who is a law abiding citizen cannot have any complaint against the card system. R.56(2)(p) of the Motor Vehicles Rules insists that a public service vehicle driver shall not demand or collect fare in excess of the rates fixed by Government from time to time while sub-clause (b) of the same rule insists that the driver shall behave in a civil and orderly manner to the passengers and intending passengers. The State Transport Authority have the power to fix the rates of hire under S.44(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act when the State Government issues a direction under S.43 (1) (i). The authorities have the power to take effective steps to see that passengers are not made to pay more than the rates fixed. The complaint cards issued with the object of implementing the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be said to be in any way illegal. The complaint card system is already in force in New Delhi and other cities. By virtue of the powers under S.78 and 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver of a Motor Vehicle will have to stop the vehicle if demanded by any Police Officer. So a running autorickshaw can be stopped for handing over a complaint card to the passenger. The petitioner in O. P. No. 8933 of 1982 has no locus standi to bring this Original Petition. There is no whisper in the Original Petition that be is an autorickshaw driver or owner. It is not also stated that his committee is a registered association. 9. A taxi is an automobile that carries passengers for a fare usually determined by the distance travelled and by the time taken when the vehicle is also detained at the instance of the passenger. A taxi meter is insisted so that the passenger need only pay the fare as per the meter. Power is there to fix the fare. There is also power to see that the passengers are not compelled to pay more than what they are legally bound to pay. A taxi meter is insisted so that the passenger need only pay the fare as per the meter. Power is there to fix the fare. There is also power to see that the passengers are not compelled to pay more than what they are legally bound to pay. It goes without saying that effective steps can be taken to see that the driver of a taxi does not exact more than the fare he is entitled as per the taxi meter or does not violate any other condition insisted by the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules which he is bound to observe. R.56 (2) (p) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules insists that the driver of a taxi shall not demand or collect fare in excess of the rates fixed from time to time. As per R.56 (2) (p) he should not misbehave towards passengers. As per R.233 (3) he cannot refuse to take a passenger. R.328 insists that the driver shall set the taxi meter in motion when he plies the vehicle on hire. As per Ext. P1 complaint card if the driver violates any of the provisions of law mentioned above the passengers can fill up the same and send it by post to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic). Why should an autorickshaw driver who does not want to violate the law be aggrieved by this. What right has one who violates the law to insist that the complaint card should not be distributed to the passengers. The fundamental right under Art.19(1) (g) of the Constitution to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is not a right to practice the profession or carry on the occupation in whatever manner one wants. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions can of course be there to safeguard the interests of the public at large. The complaint card system is for the benefit of the travelling public. It is for the more effective implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules which provide for safeguards for the travelling public who use these vehicles. There is no challenge in these Original Petitions that any of those provisions is hit by Art.19 or any other provision of the Constitution of India. There is nothing in the Act and the Rules against the complaint card system. There is no challenge in these Original Petitions that any of those provisions is hit by Art.19 or any other provision of the Constitution of India. There is nothing in the Act and the Rules against the complaint card system. The complaint will be enquired into by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and only if it is found that the complaint is genuine a case will be taken against the driver. This is a sufficient safeguard for the driver also. 10. Another question that has to be considered is whether a running autorickshaw can be stopped by a police constable for handing over the complaint card to the passenger. As per S.87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver of a motor vehicle will have to stop it when required by a Police Officer in uniform. As per S.78 of the Act also a driver has to comply with the directions of a Police Officer on traffic duty. But as per R.56(1) of the Rules a Police Officer in uniform below the rank of a Sub Inspector cannot insist upon the driver of a motor vehicle to produce his badge for inspection. It goes without saying that a Police Officer includes a Police Constable also. So a Police Constable in uniform can stop a running vehicle. In that case the driver cannot have any legal grievance if the police constable stops the autorickshaw to hand over complaint card. It will not be a violation of Art.19(1)(d) also as freedom of movement, does not mean movement without reasonable restrictions even. A passenger also cannot insist that once he gets into a vehicle the vehicle should stop only when it reaches its destination. It is only fundamental that a running vehicle can be stopped for inspection by an authority competent to do that. For the effective implementation of the traffic rules also the vehicle can be stopped. So it goes without saying that for handing over the complaint card also the vehicle can be stopped by any Police Officer. 11. There is no whisper in O. P. No. 8933 of 1982 that the petitioner is an autorickshaw driver or owner. is not stated that the organisation of which he is the convenor is a registered association. There is also no averment that the petitioner has filed this Original Petition as public interest litigation. 11. There is no whisper in O. P. No. 8933 of 1982 that the petitioner is an autorickshaw driver or owner. is not stated that the organisation of which he is the convenor is a registered association. There is also no averment that the petitioner has filed this Original Petition as public interest litigation. In view of this it goes without saying that this Original Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. 12. Sri Mathai Paikeday, the President of the Cochin Jaycees took strong exception to certain derogatory remarks made by the counsel for the petitioners about his organisation. It was really unfortunate that such remarks were made about a service organisation doing yeoman service in India and abroad. An international organisation like the Jaycees can very well ignore these remarks. I wish to add that in focusing attention on this problem of autorickshaw drivers taxing the public too much the Cochin Jaycees have done a good job. It is for the City Police to see that the complaint card system is effectively implemented. Only the erring among the autorickshaw drivers will fall into the net cast by the complaint card and hence the majority of these drivers or their organisations need not at all be aggrieved. In the result I bold that the complaint card system introduced by the City Police is perfectly legal and valid and cannot be interfered with in these proceedings. The Original Petitions are dismissed. No costs.