The State Transport Authority possesses statutory authority to impose safety regulations on transport vehicles, prioritizing public safety over procedural rights of individual permit holders.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

In this batch of writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos. 17429, 19931, 25842, 22767, 22700, 19647, 18217, 15942, 15181, 16924 and 12378 of 2025, the petitioners, who are stage carriage operators, tourist taxi operators and educational institution bus operators, challenge the decisions of the State Transport Authority (hereinafter, “STA”) dated 24.01.2025 and the circular of Transport Commissioner dated 28.04.2025 mandating the installation of cameras with driver- fatigue detection sensors, production of Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) and the installation of geo-fencing facility. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 19931, 25842, 19647, 12378 of 2025 are aggrieved by the decision of the STA taken on 24.01.2025, by which three conditions were stipulated and made applicable to existing stage carriages with effect from 01.04.2025. These included: (i) production of police clearance certificates by the registered owner, driver, and conductor; (ii) installation of cameras with driver-fatigue detection sensors; and (iii) geo-fencing facility with a recorder. The petitioners essentially contend that this decision was taken without affording notice or an opportunity of hearing to any of the stakeholders. It is pointed out that the agenda for the meeting published on 09.01.2025 contained 20 items concerning renewal and variation of inter-state permits. However, on 23.01.2025, an additional agenda was prepared introducing departmental item No.3, without prior notice, for consideration of proposals relating to 503 formulated routes. While granting the formulated routes, it was decided that 14 permit conditions would apply to such routes. The STA further incorporated Condition No.15, making conditions 1, 4, and 8 applicable to existing stage carriages with effect from 01.04.2025.

2.1. The petitioners also urge that the impugned action is in clear violation of Rules 123 and 140 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule, which indicates that a notice has to be issued to those who are permitted to attend the meeting to make a representation. It is further submitted that under Section 68 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , the power to frame rules vests exclusively with the State Government, and not with the STA. The conditions prescribed by the Government for the control of transport vehicles, and the authorities, while granting permits, may impose conditions only to the extent permitted by the statute. Under Section 72 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an authority may impose any of the 22 specified conditions, but under sub-rule (xxii), any variation of existing conditions or imposition of additional conditions can be effected only after giving notice to the permit holder of not less than one month. The petitioners contend that this mandatory procedure has not been followed.

2.2. Pursuant to the STA’s decision, the Transport Commissioner issued a circular dated 28.04.2025, directing that police clearance certificates be obtained for drivers, conductors, and door assistants as a condition for working in stage carriages. It is contended that such insistence is arbitrary and beyond the powers conferred under the Act. The petitioners also highlight the operational difficulties, pointing out that the insistence on PCC would create an acute scarcity of employees.

2.3. Apart from the common contentions in W.P.(C) No.19931 of 2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K.V. Gopinathan Nair argues that the circular issued by th