Back
2010 Supreme(SC) 1347
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU, T.S. THAKUR, JJ.
Ismeth Ummer – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority – Respondent
C.A. No. 5227 of 2003
Decided On : 04-08-2010
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K. Radhakrishnan, Mathai Pailkeday.
The Regional Transport Authority has the power to prescribe the age limit for stage carriages in the public interest under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Regional Transport Authority - Age Limit for Stage Carriage - The court held that the Regional Transport Authority has the power to prescribe the age limit for stage carriages under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the public interest to prevent accidents and inconvenience.
Fact of the Case:
The controversy revolved around whether the Regional Transport Authority can prescribe that a stage carriage which is more than 15 years old cannot ply.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regional Transport Authority has the power to fix the age limit of vehicles for the grant of permit for a stage carriage under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the public interest.
Issues: The main issue was the authority of the Regional Transport Authority to restrict the age of vehicles for the grant of permit for a stage carriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and held that the expression 'specified description' includes fixing the age of the vehicle, and such restriction is justified in the public interest to prevent accidents and inconvenience.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Civil Appeal No. 5227 of 2003
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 28.3.2001.
3. The facts of the case have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating them here.
4. The short controversy in this case is whether the Regional Transport Authority can prescribe that a stage carriage which is more than 15 years old cannot ply.
5. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan and Mr. Mathai M. Paikeday, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submitted that under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 only the Central Government can fix the age limit of vehicles. We do not agree.
6. Under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Regional Transport Authority may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description. The expression ‘specified description’ is very wide and, in our opinion, this would include fixing the age of the vehicle also. Restricting the age of the vehicle for the grant of permit for a stage carriage is obviously in the public interest because old vehicles can cause accidents and inconvenience and, therefore, the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are perfectly justified in placing such a restriction for grant of the permit.
7. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Civil Appeal No. 8862 of 2003
8. In view of the order made in Civil Appeal No. 5227 of 2003, this Appeal also stands dismissed. No costs.
