Back
Judges : K.SREEDHARAN,B.N.PATNAIK
State of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
Sebastian - Respondent
Case No : W.A.No.1403 of 1994
Decided On : 01/28/1995
Advocates Appeared :
Advocate General (S. Narayanan Pott) For Appellants M. Ramesh Cliander For Respondent
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Notification - S.R.O. No. 364/94 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the nature and effect of a notification issued by the Government under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which authorizes the State Government to issue directions regarding the fixing of fares and freights of stage carriages. The court also considered the reasonableness of the conditions imposed in the notification and the severability of objectionable provisions. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions under Section 67 and the powers of the Government to make rules for carrying into effect the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the notification in question.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government issued a notification modifying earlier notifications related to the rates of fares for different classes of stage carriage services and additional facilities to be provided by operators. The provisions of the notification were questioned by permit holders in a series of Original Petitions. The learned Single Judge upheld the objections and quashed the entire notification, which was appealed by the State and the permit holders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification issued under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a subordinate legislation binding on quasi-judicial authorities. It held that certain conditions imposed in the notification were unreasonable and struck down sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of Clause (F) while restricting the scope of sub-clause (ii). The court also directed the Government to fix the standard to be maintained by vehicles granted permits for specific categories.
Issues: The issues included the nature and effect of the notification issued under Section 67, the reasonableness of the conditions imposed, and the justification for granting permits without guidelines regarding the standard to be maintained by the vehicles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the reasonableness of the conditions imposed in the notification. It also emphasized the need for guidelines regarding the standard to be maintained by vehicles granted permits for specific categories.
Final Decision: All appeals were allowed, and the notification, S.R.O.364/94, was upheld except for the specified provisions. The court directed the Government to fix the standard to be maintained by vehicles granted permits for specific categories and restrained the grant of permits for certain categories until the standards are laid down.
Sreedharan, J.
State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by S.67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act", issued G.O.(P) No. 19/ 94/PW & T dated March 28,1994 as S.R.O. No. 364/94. By the said notification, Government modified the earlier notifications relating to the same subject. As per the present notification, S.R.O.364/94, rates of rates for different. classes of stage carriage services were fixed. Fare for ordinary Mofussil services, including City, Town and Limited Stop City services, is fixed at 18 paise per kilometre. In the case of Fast Passenger and Limited Slop Fast Passenger, the fare is fixed at 22 paise. In the case of Super Fast services, Express services, Super Express services, Deluxe services and Super Express services, the rates of fares is 24 paise, 27 paise, 28 paise, 30 paise and 32 paise respectively. As per the notification, permit holders of stage carriages were directed to provide certain additional facilities to the passengers. Clause (F) of the notification deals with those additional facilities to be provided by operators having permits for plying Fast Passenger, Limited Stop Fast Passenger, Super Fast service, Express service. Super Express service, Deluxe Service and Super Deluxe Service. For a proper understanding of the same, we read the said clause:
"(F) The services mentioned in items (ii) to (vii) of Clause (A) shall be operated by the Operators if they fulfill the following conditions:
(i) Speed Limit.-In compliance to Government of India Notification No. S.O.425(E), dated 9-6-1989, Fast Passengers to run at an average speed of 40 Kilometers, Super Fast services to run at an average speed of 50 kilometers or above, Express/Super Express services to run at an average speed of 50 kilometers, Deluxe/Super Deluxe services to run at an average speed of 50 kilometers.
(ii) Advance Reservation Facilities.-All Fast Passengers, Super Fast, Express/Super Express, Deluxe/Super Deluxe services should have seven days advance reservation facilities at both ends at important Stations in all revenue Districts through which the services passes.
(iii) Retiring Rooms, Latrines, Urinals and Refreshment Stalls.-All Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Express/Super Express, Deluxe/Super Deluxe permitholders to maintain their own bus stations/Garages in all districts, lying within the route length and such Bus Stations and Garages to have retiring rooms, latrines, urinals separately for Ladies and Gents, refreshment stall, and advance reservation counters. But Stations owned by Local Bodies shall not be treated as thai of permit holder.
(iv) All Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Express/SuperExpress, Deluxe/Super Deluxe permit holders should maintain Reserve Bus, as contemplated under rule 182 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 19X9.
(v) In the case of existing superior classes of services like Fast Passengers, Super Fast Express/Super Express and Deluxe & Super Deluxe the fare under clause (A) should be charged by the Operators".
The provisions contained in this clause was questioned by permit holders in a series of Original Petition. Learned Single Judge upheld the objections and also took the view that the said clause is not severable and so the entire notification is bad. Accordingly, the learned judge quashed the notification and revived S.R.O.1048/92, which fixed the rates of fares for the various classes of stage carriages. The State has come up in appeal questioning the correctness of the action of the learned Single Judge in quashing the entire notification. The permit holders, who challenged Clause (F) of the notification, are als aggrieved by the decision, since their right to collect enhanced fare as per the notification has been interfered with as a result of the entire notification having been struck down.
2. Learned Single Judge quashed the notification primarily on four grounds. A notification issued under S.67 of the 1988 Act can only be treated as an admini
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
