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
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.