Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ
Shrikant Madhav Karve. - Petitioner
Vs
The Secretary (Parivahan IV) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.) - Respondents
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.28 OF 2013
Decided on : 18.2.2016
Advocate Appeared:
Shri A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate along with Shri Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae for the Petitioner.
Shri S.M. Karve, the Petitioner in person.
Shri S.K. Shinde, Special Government Pleader along with Ms. Sneha G. Sanap for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mrs. Shehnaz (Sheroo) Vispy Bharucha (Daruwalla) for the Respondent No.5.
Strict compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for road safety and to prevent accidents involving transport vehicles. The Court has the authority to issue directions to the State Government and the Central Government to ensure proper implementation of the law and to address issues related to road safety and vehicle fitness certification.
Headnote:
The judgment deals with the implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly focusing on the manner in which transport vehicles are checked for the purpose of issuing fitness certificates. The Court emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with the relevant provisions to ensure road safety and prevent accidents involving transport vehicles.
Fact of the Case:
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by an individual petitioner, appearing in person, raising concerns about the implementation of the MV Act and the Rules, specifically regarding the manner in which transport vehicles are checked for fitness certificates. The petitioner alleged that the checks were not being conducted properly, leading to the issuance of fitness certificates to vehicles that did not meet the required safety standards. This, in turn, posed a risk to road safety and resulted in accidents involving transport vehicles.
Finding of the Court:
The Court conducted detailed examinations of the relevant provisions of the MV Act and the Rules, including Rule 62, which outlines the tests and checks required for issuing fitness certificates. The Court also considered the reports submitted by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), which had been appointed to inspect the Regional Transport Offices (RTOs) and assess their compliance with the Rules. Based on the evidence and submissions, the Court found that there were indeed issues with the manner in which fitness certificates were being issued, including inadequate infrastructure, lack of trained personnel, and incomplete or improper testing of vehicles.
Issues: 1. Proper implementation of the MV Act and the Rules, particularly regarding the issuance of fitness certificates to transport vehicles. 2. Ensuring road safety and preventing accidents involving transport vehicles. 3. Addressing allegations of corruption and negligence in the process of issuing fitness certificates. 4. Modernization of RTOs and adoption of technology for efficient and transparent vehicle testing.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that strict compliance with the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules is essential for road safety and to prevent accidents involving transport vehicles. The Court issued a series of directions to the State Government and the Central Government to address the issues identified. These directions included: * Ensuring that all transport vehicles undergo thorough testing and checks as per Rule 62 and other relevant provisions before issuing fitness certificates. * Providing adequate infrastructure, including dedicated tracks for brake testing, at all RTOs. * Appointing sufficient numbers of trained personnel, including Inspecting Officers and Technical Assistants, to conduct the vehicle checks. * Digitizing vehicle and driving license data and interlinking all RTOs in the State to enable real-time access to information. * Creating a centralized data grid at the national level to store information about all vehicles registered across the country. * Considering amendments to the MV Act to provide for more stringent penalties for violations related to fitness certificates. * Exploring the use of modern technology and equipment for vehicle testing to improve efficiency and transparency.
Final Decision: The Court's directions were aimed at overhauling the system of issuing fitness certificates to transport vehicles, with the goal of improving road safety and preventing accidents. The Court also emphasized the need for modernization and adoption of technology to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the vehicle testing process. The Court directed the State Government and the Central Government to take necessary actions within specified time frames to implement the directions issued by the Court.
1. The Petitioner appearing in person has raised important issues concerning implementation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the MV Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder. Shri A.Y. Sakhare, learned senior counsel and Shri Warunjikar, learned counsel who were appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner, while assisting the Court, have made detailed submissions. Certain submissions are also made by the Petitioner appearing in person. Shri S.K. Shinde, Special Government Pleader who represents the State has not taken adversarial stand and has assisted the Court. He has also made detailed submissions.
2. Under the MV Act, there are different categories of vehicles. In this Public Interest Litigation, the issues raised are mainly about the “transport vehicles” as defined under Subsection (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act. The main issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation is as regards the manner in which the transport vehicles are checked for the purposes of issuing fitness certificates.
3. Under the provisions of MV Act and in particular Section 39 thereof, the registration of every motor vehicle is mandatory. Section 39 of the MV Act reads thus:
“39. Necessity for registration. No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” (emphasis added)
4. As far as the certificate of fitness is concerned, relevant provision is Section 56 of the MV Act which is applicable to the transport vehicles defined under Subsection (47) of Section 2 thereof. Subsection (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act reads thus:
“2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.”
5. Subsection (14) of Section 2 defines “goods carriage” which reads thus:
“2(14) goods carriage” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.” Subsection (33) of Section 2 defines “private service vehicle” which reads thus:
“(33) “private service vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;” A Public Service Vehicle is defined under Subsection (35) of Section 2 of the MV Act which reads thus:
“2(35) public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage.” Subsection (17) of Section 2 defines heavy passenger motor vehicle which includes private and public service vehicles having unladen weight of more than 12,000 Kg. Therefore, broadly, all goods vehicle and tourist buses will be covered by the definition of transport vehicle under Subsection (47) of section 2.
6. Broadly speaking, in this Petition, we are concerned with the transport vehicles as defined under Subsection (47) of Section 2 of the MV Act with emphasis on goods carriage and buses including the buses having sleeper facility (Sleeper coaches).
7. Section 56 of the MV Act which deals with certificates
