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

1990 Supreme(Raj) 289

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.R.ARORA
ISHAR - Appellant
Versus
RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CIV. WRIT PETITION 1919 Of 1990
Decided On : 10/08/1990

Advocates Appeared:
B.L.MAHESHWARI, G.D.CHHANGANI, G.R.GORA, J.P.JOSHI, R.K.Purohit, R.N.Munshi, R.R.VYAS, V.D.VYAS

Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, prescribing a 9-year age limit for goods carriages holding national permits, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - NATIONAL PERMIT - AGE LIMIT - Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, prescribing a 9-year age limit for goods carriages holding national permits, is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The rule is a valid exercise of the Central Government's power to frame rules under Section 88(14) of the Act and is not inconsistent with any other provision of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, holders of national permits for public carriers, challenged the validity of Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which prescribed a 9-year age limit for goods carriages holding national permits. They argued that the rule was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and that it was arbitrary and unreasonable.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Rule 88 was not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It held that the rule was a valid exercise of the Central Government's power to frame rules under Section 88(14) of the Act and that it was not inconsistent with any other provision of the Act. The court also held that the rule was not arbitrary or unreasonable, as it was based on a study by a body of technical experts and was necessary for public safety.

Issues: 1. Whether Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 2. Whether Rule 88 is arbitrary and unreasonable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 88 is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India or the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it is a valid exercise of the Central Government's power to frame rules under Section 88(14) of the Act and is not inconsistent with any other provision of the Act. 2. Rule 88 is not arbitrary or unreasonable, as it is based on a study by a body of technical experts and is necessary for public safety.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Judgment


MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition and the writ petitions mentioned in the schedule appended to this order involve common questions of law as such they are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) FOR the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts of Ishar v. State of Rajasthan and others (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1919 of 1990) are taken into consideration : the petitioner holds a national permit for public carrier granted by the respondents. The petitioner was granted authorisation on the national permit under the Motor Vehicles (National Permit) Rules 1975 (referred to hereinafter as the Rules of 1975 ). By this authorisation the petitioner is entitled to operate as a public carrier throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States as authorised in the permit. The period of validity of the authorisation shall not exceed one year at a time. The permit holder can operate for minimum four States including the home State. But the Rules of 1975 were superseded and the new rules came to be incorporated known as the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989 ). According to the provisions of these rules, the age of the vehicle is prescribed as 9 years.

( 3 ) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that R. 88, which prescribes the life span of a vehicle, is ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act of 1988 ).

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel, it will be relevant to reproduce here R. 88 of the Rules of 1989. R. 88 reads, as under:-" 88. Age of motor vehicle for the purpose of national permit - (1) No national permit shall be granted in respect of a goods carriage which is more than nine years old at any point of time. (2) A national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle covered by the permit completes nine years from the date of its initial registration. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule, the period of nine years shall be computed from the date of initial registration of the goods carriage concerned. "these Rules have been framed by the Central Government under the purported exercise of its powers under Ss. 12, 27, 64, sub-section (14) of S. 88, Ss. 110, 137, 164 and 208 read with S. 211 of the Act of 1988.

( 5 ) MR. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that R. 88 suffers from non-application of mind and it is arbitrary, unreasonable and not consistent with Ss. 88, 56, 59, 81 and 72. Learned counsel submitted that there is no rationale behind fixing the age limit of the motor vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that these Rules are beyond the scope of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that there is no notification issued under S. 59 of the Act of 1988. As such the Rules are beyond the scope of the Act. In this connection, learned counsel has specially invited our attention to sub-sections (12) and (14) of S. 88 of the Act of 1988, which came into force with effect from 1/07/1989. S. 88 reads as under: " 88. Validation of permits for the outside region in which granted - (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned: provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State shall be valid in that area without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned: pro






















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