IMPORTANT POINT
When the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to it.

Headnote:Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989- Rule 128(9)- Appeals and writ petitions against order of the High Court whereby it held that transporters could only provide luggage space at the rear or the sides of a tourist vehicle and no luggage could be carried on the roof of vehicle –Plea of transport operators that they had the right to carry luggage of the passengers on the roof of their vehicles- Rule 128 (9) is a special provision meant for laying down specifications for a tourist vehicle- The sub-Rule specifically provides that in a tourist vehicle, the permit holder should only provide luggage holds at the rear or at the sides or both, of the tourist vehicle with sufficient space and size-When the Rules specifically make a provision in regard to the place where luggage holds shall be provided by necessary implication, it goes to exclude all the other places of the tourist vehicle for being used as luggage holds- Since the language of Rule was clear and unambiguous, no other construction could be resorted to understand plain language of the sub-Rule (a) of Rule 128 of the Rules –Appeals dismissed. (Paras 13, 21 to 24)
        Interpretation of statutes-The cardinal rule of interpretation is to allow the general words to take their natural wide meaning unless the language of the Statute gives a different indication of such meaning and is likely to lead to absurd result, in which case their meaning can be restricted by the application of this rule and they may be required to fall in line with the specific things designated by the preceding words- When the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to it (Para 15)
       Facts of the Case :
        Issue involved in present appeals was whether a transporter could provide luggage carriers on the roof of his vehicle.
       Findings of the Court :
        A -Rule 128 (9) is a special provision meant for laying down specifications for a tourist vehicle. The sub-Rule specifically provides that in a tourist vehicle, the permit holder should only provide luggage holds at the rear or at the sides or both, of the tourist vehicle with sufficient space and size.
        B. When the Rules specifically make a provision in regard to the place where luggage holds shall be provided by necessary implication, it goes to exclude all the other places of the tourist vehicle for being used as luggage holds.
        C. Since the language of Rule was clear and unambiguous, no other construction could be resorted to understand plain language of the sub-Rule (a) of Rule 128 of the Rules .Appeals were dismissed

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.

1. These appeals and writ petitions are directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.3 of 1996 dated 21.07.2006, whereby the High Court has held that transporters (writ petitioners before the High Court) could only provide luggage space at the rear or the sides of a tourist vehicle as mandated by Rule 128(9) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”], and no luggage could be carried on the roof of the vehicle. The prayer in the writ petitions is to direct the respondents therein not to check, levy and collect the compounding fee from the vehicles of the petitioners.

2. The transport operators [hereinafter referred to as the “transporters”] are in appeal by special leave before us, claiming that they have the right to carry luggage of the passengers on the roof of their vehicles. In all, there are six appeals and three writ petitions before us, but for the sake of convenience, we will refer to the factual scenario in C.A. No. 1507 of 2007, as the same dicta will also be applicable to the rest of the matters.

3. The transporters operate tourist vehicles between the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra and have been granted tourist permits by the State Transport Authority of Karnataka under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The respondents, by their communication/circular dated 15.12.1995 had 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. Due to this instruction, the checking authorities had 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.

4. Aggrieved by this imposition and collection of fine, the transporters preferred a writ petition before the Bombay High Court inter-alia seeking the following relief/(s):

“i) Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and prohibit the 3rd and 4th Respondents and their sub-ordinate checking officers from checking, levying and collecting the compounding fee from the vehicles of the Petitioners on the alleged offence of carriage of goods on the top of the vehicle.

ii) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction and quash memo receipts issued to several vehicles of the Petitioners vide Annexure ‘C’ produced in the Writ Petition.

iii) A Writ in the nature of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondent not to levy and collect illegal compounding fee for carriage of goods on the top of the Petitioners vehicles as per the limits prescribed.

iv) Direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to refund the compound fee already collected from the Petitioners.”

5. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that by virtue of Rule 128 (9) of the Rules, luggage of the passengers could be stored only in the rear and side of the vehicle and not on the roof of the vehicle. The High Court held:

“15... The specifications are aimed at securing safety and security of the passengers so also the luggage and thus the same needs to be meticulously adhered to. It has been stated in the affidavit in reply that on account of the loading of the luggage on the roof of the vehicle in huge quantities or weights, unevenly kept, is likely to result in exposing the vehicle to accidents and as such the respondents insistence in not permitting keeping of the luggage on the roof of the vehicles is justified.

16. Having regard to the language used in sub rule 9(i) which mandates that the luggage holds shall be provided at the rear or at the sides or both, what is intended is exclusion of the making of a provision for luggage holds at any other place. Sub rule 9(i) is indicative of the mandatory na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 719

IMPORTANT POINT When the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to it.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
When the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to it.