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

2001 Supreme(Ker) 158

Judges : MRS.K.K.USHA,KURIAN JOSEPH
Raghavan - Appellant
Versus
R.T.O., Kollam - Respondent
Case No : O.P. Nos. 29922,31671 etc. of 2000 & connected cases
Decided On : 03/28/2001
Advocates Appeared :
M.M. Abdul Aziz (Sr. Advocate), K. Radhakrishnan, Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, Binoy Vasudevan, A.V.M. Salahudin, G. Prabhakaran, P. Ravindran, Aysha Youseff, Anil Sivaraman, N. Ashok Kumar, K.V. Gopinathan Nair, Sumathy Dandapani, Liffy P. Francis, Raju G. Shenoi, L. Muraleedharan, Babu Karukapadath, M.A. Vaheeda Babu, P. Gopalakrishna Menon & M. Jithesh Menon For Petitioners Government Pleader (K. sasikumar ), S.R. Dayananda Prabhu & K.S. Rajesh For Respondents

The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Regional Transport Authority to impose restrictions on the age of vehicles for stage carriage permits under S.72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the interest of public safety and convenience.

Headnote:

Imposition of a model condition by different Regional Transport Authorities to restrict permits for stage carriages older than 15 years - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.59, S.72 - The court upheld the power of the Regional Transport Authority to restrict the age of vehicles for stage carriage permits, citing public safety and convenience as the primary objective of the Act. The court also directed a two-year grace period for operators to replace their vehicles.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a challenge to the imposition of a model condition by various Regional Transport Authorities, restricting permits for stage carriages older than 15 years. The petitioners argued that such a restriction was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the restriction imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities was within their jurisdiction under S.72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court emphasized the importance of public safety and convenience, citing the alarming number of accidents involving private buses and the need for regulatory measures to safeguard the traveling public.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Regional Transport Authorities had the power to impose a restriction regarding the age of vehicles for stage carriage permits, and whether such a restriction was reasonable and in the public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression 'specified description' in S.72(2) of the Act includes the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. The court also emphasized the need for regulatory measures to ensure the reliability and efficiency of service and the safety of the traveling public.

Final Decision: The court upheld the power of the Regional Transport Authority to impose a restriction regarding the age of vehicles for stage carriage permits, citing public safety and convenience as the primary objective of the Act. The court directed a two-year grace period for operators to replace their vehicles.

Judgment :-

Kurian Joseph, J. Imposition of a model condition by different Regional Transport Authorities to the effect that no permit will be granted, renewed, countersigned, varied or request for concurrence entertained in respect of stage carriages which are more than 15 years old as reckoned from the date of initial registration is the common issue under challenge in all these cases.

2. At the outset may refer to the relevant portion in the impugned order Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 620 of 2001:

"This authority is very much concerned with the ever increasing road accidents especially those involving stage carriages. This authority is enjoined to look into the objects of the M.V. Act, 1988, which includes Road safety standards, Pollution Control measures, safety standards of vehicles and its components etc. The main object of the Act is thus "public safety and convenience". To achieve the above said objectives it is desirable among other things to eliminate very old vehicles used for carrying passengers from the road in a phased manner. This authority is not indulging in condemning the vehicle under the provisions of S.59 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the contrary a condition is imposed by way of specifying stage carriages for which permits will be issued in future and the permits of which would be renewed subject to the compliance of this prescription which is within the powers of the R.T.A. under S.72(2) of the M.V. Act.

All the contentions advanced before us have been examined in detail. We are convinced that a later model stage carriage is a better safeguard for ensuring reliability and efficiency of service because new model incorporates new devices to reduce danger and promote comfort. The advantages offered by new technology should be exposed and made available to the public."

3. n O.P.No. 34820 of 2000, the Regional Transport Authority stated as follows in the impugned order Ext. P7:

"This Authority is convinced that an old model passenger vehicle packed with passengers and running is stiff competition with other vehicles, emitting pollutants violating exhaust emission standards is a potential source of danger to the public. Periodical maintenance, however deep, or inspection by Inspectors of Motor Vehicles Department once in a year would not help to ensure public safety in the case of very old buses. Passengers of such buses are often denied the comfort and convenience offered by the latest technological development."

As regards the restriction imposed, it is more or less in the following terms by all the Regional Transport Authorities:

"A condition is imposed to every stage carriage permit that every vehicle covered by a permit granted, renew or countersigned by this Authority shall be of not more than 15 years old, reckoned from the date of its initial registration.

In the case of renewal of permit, a maximum period of 6 months may be allowed by the RTA for replacement of such vehicles by a later model vehicle in deserving cases."

4. It is the case of the petitioners that such a restriction imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. However, it is the common case of the petitioners that such a power to restrict the life of a motor vehicle is provided only to the Central Government, under S.59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence the Regional Transport Authority (for short'the R.T.A. ) lacks jurisdiction to impose any such restriction regarding the life of a stage carriage. It is submitted that once a transport vehicle is issued the certificate of fitness under S.56, which is to be obtained every year under R.62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 thereinafter referred to as 'the Central rules'), the R.T.A. is obliged to grant permit, of course, subject to the considerations under S.71 of the Act. And the only conditions which could be attached to a permit are those enumerated under S.72(
































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top