SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Kar) 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE & RAVI MALIMATH, JJ.
Y.N. Nanjappa Retired Hal Employee – Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India Rep. by its Principal Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 52082 of 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate, Sri Anandarama, Ms. Nalina Mayegowda, M/s. Poovayya & Co. Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sri Krishna S. Dixit, Assistant Solicitor General, Sri R. Devadas, Government Advocate and Sri Aravind Sharma, Advocate.

Headnote:MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - Section 137 & Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Rule 118(1)(iv) (amended in 2015): [Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, Actg. C. J. & Ravi Malimath, JJ] Installation of speed governor - Proviso to Rule 118 exempting M1, M2 and N1 category vehicles from installing speed governor - Category of vehicles exempted involved in large number of accidents - Held, There is no defendable or intelligible criteria between the categories of vehicles, which have been exempted from the requirements of speed governors and the other vehicles requiring speed governors. Both pose equal peril to the commuters and pedestrians. There is no rational nexus in granting such exemption and such artificial classification is illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India notification date Oct. 10, 2015 relating to and sub-rule 1(iv) of R. 118 are illegal and ultra vires the constitution.

ORDER :

1. This is a writ petition assailing the notification dated April 15, 2015 giving into force Central Motor Vehicles (Sixth Amendment) Rules 2015 and also, the notification dated October 01, 2015.

2. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, learned senior advocate appears for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1 – Union of India and Mr. R. Devadas, learned principal government advocate, appears for the State of Karnataka.

3. Sub-clause (iv) of the proviso to Rule 118(1) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, exempted certain motor vehicles from fitting with speed governor, that is, speed limit device or speed limiting function.

4. The relevant portion of the amended provisions runs as under:

“118. Speed Governor –

(1) Every transport vehicle notified by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), save as provided herein and manufactured on or after the 1st October, 2015 shall be equipped or fitted by the vehicle manufacturer, either in the manufacturing stage or at the dealership stage, with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) having maximum pre-set speed of 80 kilometre per hour conforming to the Standard AIS 018/2001, as amended from time to time:

Provided further that the transport vehicle that are –

(i)......

(ii)......

(iii)......

(iv) Four wheeled and used for carriage of passengers and their luggage, with seating capacity not exceeding eighth passengers in addition to driver seat (M1 category) and not exceeding 3500 kilogram gross vehicle weight;

(v)......

(vi)......

(vii)......

(viii)......

Shall not be required to be fitted with the speed governor (Speed Limiting Device or Speed Limiting Function)

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Further, by the aforementioned notification dated October 01, 2015, the authorities exempted N1 and M2 category of vehicles from installing a speed governor.

6. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules defines M1, M2 and N1 categories of vehicles as under:

“Category M-1” means a motor vehicle used for carriage of passengers, comprising not more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat.

“Category M-2” means a motor vehicle used for carriage of passengers, comprising nine or more seats in addition to driver’s seat and having Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 5 tonnes.

“Category N-1” means a motor vehicle used for carriage of goods and having Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 3.5 tonnes.

7. In recent times there has been significant growth of motor vehicles. Unfortunately, there are accidents causing disabilities and even death. It was felt that some measures were to be taken to curve such menace. The provisions were incorporated in the said Rules for the purpose of carving the speed limit of the vehicles. In substance, it was incorporated that vehicles must be fitted with speed limit device or speed limiting function.

8. In the year 2014 a booklet was published on the road accidents in India by the Transport Wing of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The publication was prepared for the purpose to present an in depth analysis and an overview of accidents in India and bringing into focus the challenges relating to prevention of road accidents and their impact. It was suggested for formulation of multi-pronged strategy to prevent loss of human resources on account of road accidents.

9. This litigation has a chequered history. The present petitioners filed one public interest litigation in the form of an application under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this Court, which was registered as W.P. No. 10416 of 2007, inter alia, for issuing directions on the government for installation of speed governors as the authorities decided to postpone indefinitely from enforcing the requirements of installation of speed governors.

10. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated June 30, 2008, inter alia, directed the authorities to enfo




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top