Dalveer Bhandari, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE petitioners in the instant petition have prayed that under Regulation 30 of the Delhi Control of Vehicular and Other Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulations, 1980 be declared ultra vires. According to the petitioners. Regulation 30 is also ultra vires of the provisions of Constitution of India under article 14, read with 19 (1) (d), 19 (1) (g) and 19 (6) of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be struck down. The petitioners further pray that Regulation 30 is also liable to be struck down because it confers blanket, unconsti- tutional, unguided, malafide, arbitrary and absolute powers on the DCP (Traffic ). ( 2 ) THE petitioners have also prayed that Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 is ultra vires of Article 14 and Articles 19 (l) (d), 19 (l) (g)and 19 (6) of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that the Section 30 puts unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental, constitutional and civil rights of the petitioners. It is further stated that the provisions contemplates blanket, absolute, uncanalised, uncontrolled, naked and arbitrary powers which are against the provisions of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are transporters and have been running their transport business for the last 25 years in Delhi. The petitioners have been running the business of transport and are the owners of a large number of goods trucks i. e. the heavy motor vehicles. The petitioners carry on their business of transport and delivery of goods from one place to another through these goods carriers i. e. the trucks and this business of transport of goods is carried on by loading-unloading of the goods. The Vehicles of the petitioners operate in the areas of Naya Bazar, Roshanara Road, New Rohtak Road, Sadar Bazar, Khari Baoli. Gulabi Bagh Road, Shradhanand Marg, Kutub Road, Chandni Chowk, Chowk Lahori Gate etc. ( 4 ) IT has been mentioned, in the petition that by the impugned order dated 24th November, 1992, the respondents have placed several restrictions on the movement of the trucks in these areas which have directly curtailed and infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners relating to the right to trade, business and occupation as enumerated in the Article 19 (l) (d)and 19 (l) (g)oftheconstitutionoflndia. ( 5 ) IN order to properly appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned order in toto. "office OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: TRAFFIC: DELHI. ORDER WHEREAS, the problem of congestion within the walled city due to movement of heavy vehicles and Medium Motor Vehicles has assumed major proportions as to endanger the life and property of the residents of the area. AND WHEREAS it is necessary to regulate the movement of HTVs and MMVs on roads within the walled city and the abutting areas to ensure the convenience and safety of the residents as also the normal road users. 1, Maxwell Pareira, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Delhi in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Regulation 30 (1) of the-Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulations, 1980, do hereby prohibit the plying and idle parking of Heavy Goods Transport Vehicles/medium Goods Transport Vehicles of and above the laden wt. of 4000 kg. in area and between timings as indicated hereunder:- (i)The area of Naya Bazar, Khari Baoli and Chandni Chowk bounded by H. C. Sen Marg from Kauria Pul to Fountain, Chandni Chowk from Fountain to Fatehpuri, Church Mission Road, Khari Baori from Fatehpuri to Chowk Lahori Gate, Nay a Bazar from Peeli Kothi to Chowk Lahori Gate and S. P. Mukherjee Marg and Peeli Kothi upto Calcutta Bridge including Bijli Road, from Peeli Kothi to its junction with Sadar Pul Road and engulfing all the side roads, lanes and by lanes within the specified area, from 6 AM to 9 PM. (ii) Roshan Ara Road from Chowk Ghanta Ghar to its junction with Rani Jhansi Marg and Goanka Road (Deena Nath Marg), Kali Sarak and its junction with Gulabi Bagh Road- Between 8 AM to 9. 00 PM. (iii) Gulabi Bagh Road from its junction with Old Rohtak Road to Swami Narain Marg-Between 8 AM to 9 PM. (iv) Shradha Nand Marg from Chowk Ajmere Gate to Chowk Lahori Gate-from 8 AM to 9 PM. (v)Qutab Road from Pul Mithai to Pul Pahar Ganj-From 8 AM to9 PM. This Notification supplements and is in addition to existing restrictions already imposed through various Notifications earlier issued. . Other notifications issued for areas outside the above mentioned roads/ areas will continue to be enforced as earlier in respect of HTVs and Medium Goods Transport Vehicles. (v)Qutab Road from Pul Mithai to Pul Pahar Ganj-From 8 AM to9 PM. This Notification supplements and is in addition to existing restrictions already imposed through various Notifications earlier issued. . Other notifications issued for areas outside the above mentioned roads/ areas will continue to be enforced as earlier in respect of HTVs and Medium Goods Transport Vehicles. This order shall be published for information of the general public in the official Gazzette and by affixing acopy on the Notice Boards of the office of all-District D. Cs. P. Delhi/new Delhi. The order shall come into force w. e. f. 15. 12. 1992. Given under my hand and seal of this office on 24. 1 1. 92. sd/- (MAXWELL PEREIRA) DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF POLICE TRAFFIC; DELHI No. . 16353-523/ttp (m) Date New Delhi the 24. 11. 92" ( 6 ) BY the said order movement of heavy vehicles and motor vehicles have been regulated/restricted within the walled city and the abutting areas to ensure the convenience and safety of the residents as also the normal road users. In the order, it is also mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner of Police that the problem of congestion within the walled city due to movement of Heavy Vehicles and Medium Motor Vehicles has assumed major proportions as to endanger the life. and property of the residents of the area. And the Deputy Commissioner of Police has mentioned that in order to protect the life and property of the residents of the area, the restrictions have been imposed by regulating the timings of traffic in the four different areas in the order. ( 7 ) THE question which arises for our consideration is whether the respondents are empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on petitioner s fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. In large number of cases the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that Article 19 ( 1 ) (g) protects the freedom of each individual citizen to carry on his right or business. That right is, however, not absolute but subject to Article 19 (6) which protects the law. The state can regulate the petitioners, freedom in the public interest. In large number of cases the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that Article 19 ( 1 ) (g) protects the freedom of each individual citizen to carry on his right or business. That right is, however, not absolute but subject to Article 19 (6) which protects the law. The state can regulate the petitioners, freedom in the public interest. ( 8 ) IN catena of cases the legal position has been crystallised that freedom of the citizen under Article 19 (1 ) (g) is subject to reasonable restrictions which are imposed by the State in the public order and/or public interest. ( 9 ) IN reply to show cause notice, Shri Max Well Pareira, DCP (Traffic) Police has filed counter affidavit in this court. In the counter affidavit it is submitted that the walled city, houses a large number of whole-sale traders which caters not only to the needs of Delhi but also acts as a major distribution centre for the northern India. The food grain markets in Naya Bazar and Khari Baoli, dry fruits and spices market at Khari Baoli, paper traders at Chawri Bazar, Iron and Hardware traders at Chawri Bazar and Ajmeri Gate area, cloth market in the Katras at Chandni Chowk area, motor spare parts market in Kashmere Gate Area, electric goods market in Bhagirath Place and diversified retail traders; spread along the streets are the constituents of the walled city. ( 10 ) IT is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that with the continuous increase in commercial activities, many problems of related, but of varying nature and magnitude, are cropping up. Although the population residing in this area has declined over the past years, the number of vehicles (fast as well as slow) which are plying in this area have increased significantly. Coupled with this, the problems of parking (in terms of inadeqate parking spaces) and pedestrian traffic (through continuous encroachment), hetrogenous nature of traffic using this area, increased number of unauthorised factories/godowns and other commercial activities have further complicated the traffic circulation system within the. walled city area. ( 11 ) IT is further mentioned that on 29th April, 1992, the Naya Bazar was rocked by a severe bomb explosion at Phasil Road near Girls Higher Secondary School near Kabuli Gate. Within 5 minutes of the bomb explosion, the houses were completely gutted and destroyed and fire spread all round. walled city area. ( 11 ) IT is further mentioned that on 29th April, 1992, the Naya Bazar was rocked by a severe bomb explosion at Phasil Road near Girls Higher Secondary School near Kabuli Gate. Within 5 minutes of the bomb explosion, the houses were completely gutted and destroyed and fire spread all round. Property worth millions of rupees was destroyed within the twinkling of an eyelid. ( 12 ) THE roads network in a city is a basic and important element of its transportation system. Its efficiency indicates the quality of urban life and its defects induce decay. The road network in the walled city were made a long time ago, the pedestrian traffic or slow moving animal drawn vehicles. Unfortunately, the intrusion of auto vehicles without any change in the road network, has rendered the entire transportation system very inefficient. Major arterials like Chandni Chowk, N. S. Road, Shardhanand Marg and Asaf Ali Road have lost their functional characteristics mainly due to excessive commercialisation of the adjacent areas along the roads, predominance of slow modes and large scale violation of municipal by-laws. Moreover, most of the roads are very narrow with little scope of widening. ( 13 ) IN the counter affidavit it is also mentioned that in order to avert such mishaps in future and to solve the problems of traffic congestion and parking in the walled city areas, total vehicle restriction during day time was promulgated by the Answering Respondents vide notification No. 16353-523/ttp-111 dated 24th November, 1992 under the signatures of DCP/traffic after due consultation of the matter with senior officers of Delhi Police and Delhi Administration. The notification was promulgated and introduced in the larger public interest. ( 14 ) IN the counter affidavit it has been stated that the restrictions imposed by the impugned order dated 24th November, 1992 will not effect the trade of the petitioners since the transporters have been allotted plots in Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. It has been further mentioned in the affidavit that the traders can carry on their business on the goods transport vehicles of below the laden weight of 4000 kgs. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the impugned order is covered under Article 30 (1) of the Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulations, 1980. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the impugned order is covered under Article 30 (1) of the Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulations, 1980. It is incorrect to suggest that the impugned notification is outside the scope of the Delhi Police Act and that the same is violative of Article 19 (l) (g) and Article 19 (l) (d) of the Constitution of India. ( 15 ) IT is further indicated in the affidavit that the impugned order only prohibits the plying and idle parking of Heavy Goods Transport Vehicles of and above the laden weight of 4000 kgs. The plea taken by the Petitioners for stopping their business by imposing the restriction in the said notification is not correct. The traffic has increased manifold in the last several years in the walled city. There is absolutely no scope for any expansion of the existing roads, whereby the walled city is becoming more commercialised. Basically the Traffic of the walled city comprises of slow moving traffic i. e. Tongas, thelas, rehri, bullock carts. Now with the heavy influx of heavy goods transport/medium goods transport vehicles, vehicles of and above the laden weight of 4000 kgs. which are being used during the market hour, makes a complete chaps of the traffic circulation system within the walled city. It is incorrect to suggest that the impugned order confers any arbitrary or blanket power of prohibition. It has been reiterated that the word Regulation as enumerated in the Delhi Police Act, 1978 is used in a very wide sense and subsumes Prohibition. Moreover, in this particular case prohibition is only partial with regard to timings and weight of the vehicles, keeping in view large public interest. It is wrong and denied that the powers conferred by the Commissioner of Police to Deputy Commissioner of Police by way of Regulation 30, under Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 is illegal and invalid. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits under that Section 28 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, power has been given to the Commissioner of Police for regulating traffic and preserving their order in the public place. Under this section only the Commissioner can make regulations for a number of matters including regulating traffic of any kind in streets and other places. Under this section only the Commissioner can make regulations for a number of matters including regulating traffic of any kind in streets and other places. There is no provision to delegate this power to Deputy Commissioner of Police or any other subordinate official. ( 17 ) THIS submission of the petitioners is totally fallacious and untenable in view of Section 8 of Delhi Police Act, 1978. Section 8 of the Delhi Police Act is reproduced hereunder:- "8. Deputy, Additional Deputy and Assistant Commisioners ofpolice- ( 1 ) The Administrator may appoint one or more Deputy Commissioners of Police or Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police or Assistant Commissioners of Police for the purposes of this Act. (2) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act and subject to any general or special orders made by the Administrator in this behalf, every Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police shall, under the orders of the Commissioner of Police, exercise such of the powers (except the power to make regulations) and perform such of the duties of the Commissioner of Police and within such local limits as may be specified in such orders. ( 18 ) SUB-CLAUSE (2)OF Section 8 clearly indicates that if the Commissioner of Police or Additional Commissioner of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police shall under the orders of the Commissioner of Police excercise such of the powers and perform such of the duties of the Commissioner of Pol ice within the local limits. ( 19 ) THE other contention of the petitioners is that the Section 30 of the Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Roads and Streets Regulations, 1980 are not (Sic) ultra vires of the Constitution. Section 30 of the said Act is reproduced as under:- "restriction on heavy and medium transport vehicles (1) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Delhi, may be due notification prohibit the plying of medium or heavy transport vehicles on any road or street either totally or during specified hours except under a permit granted by him (2) He may also by due notification prohibit or regulate loads and projections on vehicles which may cause danger, obstruction or. annoyance to other road users" ( 20 ) UNDER this section the Deputy Commissioner of Police is empowered to issue notification by which he can prohibit the plying of medium or heavy transport vehicles on any road or street either totally or during specified hours except under apermit granted by him. The Notification dated 24th November, 1992 has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the orders which have been given to him by virtue of Section 30 of the said Act. Detailed reasons and justification have been mentioned for imposing restrictions on the movement of heavy goods transport vehicles of the above the laden weight of 4,000 kgs. in the area and between the time indicated in the order. ( 21 ) THERE is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that total prohibition has been imposed by the order dated 24th November, 1992 because total prohibition has not been imposed and the traffic has only been regulated. The restriction has only been imposed on plying of vehicles which are above the laden weight of 4,000 kgs during day time and it cannot be termed as total prohibition. ( 22 ) THE Deputy Commissioner in his order has clearly mentioned that this regulation has become imperative to protect the life and property of the residents of the area and the order has been imposed in the larger public interest. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Abdul Hakim. Quraishi and others v. State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1961 SC 448 ). In that case the Supreme Court has removed the unreasonable restriction which was imposed on the fundamental right of the petitioners. In the instant case, the restriction which have been imposed, by any stretch of imagination can not be said to be unreasonable. In our considered opinion the aforesaid restrictions, apart from being reasonable, are in the larger public interest. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also drawn our attention to Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and another (SCS) 1973 227 ). This judgment has been cited in support of the submission that regulation does not mean total prohibition. ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also drawn our attention to Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and another (SCS) 1973 227 ). This judgment has been cited in support of the submission that regulation does not mean total prohibition. It is not necessary to examine this submission in this case for the simple reason that total prohibition has not been imposed but only traffic in some areas of walled city has been regulated and that too during the day time. Vehicles with the laden weight of more than 4,000 kgs. have been restricted. Therefore this judgment also is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 25 ) WE have carefully examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the cases cited in support of his submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under the powers delegated to him under Section 30 of the Delhi Control of Vehicular and other Traffic on Road and Streets Regulations, 1980. ( 26 ) WHEN this order is carefully examined and tested, then it is quites evident that by this order the respondents have only regulated the traffic timings and they have provided extremely sound and valid reasons for regulating the traffic. The respondents were prompted to issue this order in the larger public interest. The petition filed by the petitioner is totally devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.