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

2014 Supreme(Ker) 179

High Court of Kerala
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
Kerala State Limited represented by its President V.J. Sebastian & Others
Versus
The Government of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary & Others
W.P. (C) Nos. 18813, 18942, 18959, 19046, 19119, 19152, 19682, 20459, 20512, 20881, 21012, 21032, 21340, 21722 & 22414 of 2013
Decided on : 17-03-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:K.V. Gopinathan Nair, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, C.S. Manilal, Govt. Pleader, R2, Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, P.C. Chacko, Senior Counsels, KSRTC, R3, A. Inees, R4 & R5, Saju J. Vallyara, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14 and 226 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 96 and 212 - Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules (2013), Rules 2(ea) - Confining operation of fast passenger services only by State Transport Undertaking (STU) and excluding private stage carriage operators is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and ultra vires Section 212 read with Section 96 -Government schemes framed by Government under Section 100 is to ensure formulation of proper procedure for effective and efficient road transport service in State through State Transport Undertaking it cannot be said discriminatory.

Judgment :

1. In these batch of writ petitions Private Stage Carriage Operators challenge the definition given to “Fast Passenger Service”, “Luxury Service”, “Super Deluxe Service”, “Super Express Service” and “Super Fast Service” in the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as 'K.M.V Rules, 2013') and the Notification issued by the Government of Kerala, Transport (B) Department as per G.O.(P) No.73/2013(Tran) dated 16/07/2013, by which the Government approved a Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'Scheme') under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’).

2. The objectionable amendment with reference to the definition of “Fast Passenger Service” is extracted hereunder:

“(ea): “Fast Passenger Service” means a service which is operated by a State Transport Undertaking with limited stops on a route having a distance of not less than 70 K.Mtrs covering at least one district or connecting two district head quarters and having a seating capacity of at least 50 excluding its staff”.

Similarly clause (ka), (ua), (ub) and (uc) were substituted by confining the operation of such services by the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred as 'STU')

3. The objectionable provisions of the Scheme are paragraphs one, three, five and six which read as under:

“The proposed route and area of service, its nature and matters relating to the Scheme are as follows:-

(1)

Route or routes (with their : important intermediate Points) or the area in relation to which the scheme is proposed.

All over the State of Kerala

Xx Xx Xx

(3) Whether the services are to beoperated by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion of other persons or otherwise.:

Yes. The permits issued in the private sector on or before the date of this notification shall be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the respective permits. Thereafter no permits, regular or temporary, shall be issued afresh. Provided that the exclusion shall be partial till the existing Private Services operating routes are replaced as provided.

Xx Xx

(5)

The maximum and minimum number of vehicles to be operated

in relation to each area or route by the State Transport Undertaking.: As per traffic demand.

(6) The maximum and minimum number of trips to be provided in relation to each area or route by the State Transport Undertaking in the case of stage carriages.”: As per traffic demand

4. According to the petitioners the definition given to 'Fast Passenger Service' and other higher class of vehicles by way of amendment, is clearly arbitrary and illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. It is their common contention that by virtue of notification G.O.(P)No.4/99(Tran) dated 01/02/1999, the Government amended the Motor Vehicles Rules as per SRO No.118 of 1999 by which definition of 'Fast Passenger Service' was incorporated giving a meaning as the service which is operated by a fleet owner with limited stops on a route having a distance of not less than 70 Kms and not more than 160 Kms. 'Fleet Owner' was further defined as meaning a person or institution who or which is the registered owner of not less than 50 stage carriages kept for use in the State. A Division Bench of this Court in O.P No.9603 of 1999 formed an opinion that the definition of ‘Fleet owner’ clearly excludes every other operator other than Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and therefore the said provision is arbitrary and illegal, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However it is further observed that the Government can initiate a fresh proposal and issue notification following the procedure as contained in the statute to give a reasonable definition to the word “Fleet Owner” so that it shall not militate against Article 14 of the Constitution. It is the contention of the petitioners that the present amendment has been incorporated to the Rules conferring the very same privilege of operation to the STU which is











































































































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