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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Justin O.S – Petitioner
Versus
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Represented By Its Chairman & Managing Director and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 28838 of 2023
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.Deepak, Nazrin Banu
For the Respondent: P.C. Chacko, Joby Joseph, GP

Special area permits granted under a scheme formulated by the State Government can authorize public service vehicles to operate as contract carriages without violating statutory provisions.

Headnote:- Contract Carriage - Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 74, Section 88(8), Section 100(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, particularly focusing on Section 74 which deals with contract carriage permits, and Section 88(8) which allows for special permits for public service vehicles. The judgment also delved into the scheme formulated under Section 100(2) by the State Government to regulate road transport services.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a writ to restrain Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) from operating stage carriages as contract carriages without obtaining special permits and providing substitute vehicles on covered routes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that KSRTC's tour packages using stage carriages were legal as they operated under special area permits granted under the scheme formulated by the State Government. The petition was dismissed. ISSUES Whether KSRTC's tour packages violated statutory provisions and infringed the petitioner's legal or fundamental rights.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court analyzed relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that KSRTC's operations were within the provisions of the scheme and did not infringe any legal or fundamental rights of the petitioner. FINAL DECISION The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit and substance.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner who operates contract carriage in pursuance of the contract carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) has filed this writ petition for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 3 to 8 to take all appropriate and necessary action to ensure that the stage carriages of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) are not operated as contract carriages without obtaining special permits under Section 88(8) of the MV Act and without making provision for substitute vehicles on the routes covered by the regular stage carriage permits.

2. The petitioner, in fact, is aggrieved by ‘tour packages’ operated by KSRTC by using its stage carriages. The contentions on behalf of the petitioner are that a stage carriage having a stage carriage permit cannot be operated as a contract carriage. In fact, the tour package operations by the KSRTC are nothing but the operation of contract carriage. Such packages cannot be operated using stage carriages for which stage carriage permits under the MV Act have been issued unless special permits are applied for and issued to such stage carriages under section 88(8) of the MV Act and by following the guidelines laid down by Ext.P2 decision of the State Road Transport Authority in its meeting held on 22.11.2016.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the MV Act carves out an exception to the stipulation that a motor vehicle issued with a stage carriage permit cannot be operated as a contract carriage but with a special permit issued for the said purpose in respect of the particular stage carriage by the Regional Transport Authority. Rule 143 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 provides that an application for a special permit under Section 88(8) of the MV Act should be submitted in Form ‘P.Sp.A’ and the special permit under Section 88(8) of the MV Act should be in Form ‘P. Sp’ appended to the Rules. Rule 164 stipulates that the application fee for a special permit under Section 88(8) of the MV Act for a stage carriage shall be Rs.500/-.

3.1 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the tour packages conducted by the KSRTC are contract carriage services without having the permit for contract carriage, and this fact is evident from Ext.P3 advertisements regarding the tours being organised by the KSRTC to achieve the target of 1000 package tours to pristine locales in the State during the April-May summer vacation. These tour package operations have the following features:

    “i. Tour packages of one-day duration;

ii. Advance booking of tickets;

iii. Passenger list settled in advance prior to the commencement of the journey;

iv. Contract is for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the course of the journey;

v. Single fare for the whole journey, i.e., journey not intended for passengers boarding en route paying separate fare for the distance they propose to travel.

vi. Fare fixed under Column 3 of Ext.P2 is the consolidated fare for the whole journey and no separate fares collected as per the fare notification issued by the State Government under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

3.2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the salient features for the operation of contract carriages is a contract for a ‘fixed or agreed rate of sum’ as per the definition of ‘contract carriage’ under Section 2(7) of the MV Act. It is further submitted that the fare charged by the KSRTC for tour packages is not the fare notified by the State Government under Section 67 of the MV Act. There are no different fares indicated for the passengers for Ext.P3 tour packages operation. Therefore, the tour packages cannot be said to be stage carriages. It is also submitted that the said tour packages operation being undert

                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