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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5002

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
Coimbatore Consumer Cause, K. Kathirmathiyon
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others
Writ Petition No.6818 of 2009 & Miscellaneous Petition Nos.5 to 7 of 2009
Decided On : 23-11-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Sathia Chandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R2, P.S. Raman, Advocate General, assisted by D. Sreenivasan, Additional Government Pleader,R3, Kalyana Raman, Jayesh L. Dolia, R4, R6, Gnana Desikan, T.S. Venkateshan, Advocates.

Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Rules and the need for guidelines to ensure road safety and security.

Headnote:

Advertisement - Violation of Motor Vehicle Rules - Rule 343 of Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules - Summary: The court addressed the violation of Rule 343 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules, which prohibits the display of advertisements on motor vehicles without permission. The court highlighted the safety and security concerns, the need for guidelines, and the potential impact on road accidents and public safety. The judgment emphasized the importance of enforcing the rules and implementing necessary amendments to ensure compliance with the legal provisions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct action against the violation of Rule 343 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules due to the display of advertisements on buses, both Government and private, leading to distractions and accidents.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the display of advertisements on vehicles violated the Motor Vehicle Rules and posed safety and security risks. It directed the authorities to formulate guidelines and take necessary steps to enforce the rules.

Issues: Violation of Rule 343 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules, safety concerns, and the need for guidelines and enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of enforcing the rules to ensure road safety and security, highlighting the potential risks posed by distracting advertisements on vehicles.

Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to implement guidelines and take necessary steps to enforce the Motor Vehicle Rules, emphasizing the need for compliance and safety measures.

Judgment :-

R. Sudhakar, J.

This Writ Petition is filed in public interest praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the violation of Rule 343 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules with regard to the prohibition of advertisements on buses, both Government and private, in the entire State of Tamilnadu, within a time limit stipulated by this Court and issue appropriate orders to remove all such illegal advertisements.

2. According to the petitioner, the buses operated by State owned Corporations and private carriages are displaying advertisements on the exterior portion of the bus on all sides. The advertisements and display are in violation of Rule 343 of the Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules. It distracts the road users and the drivers of the other vehicles resulting in accident. For better appreciation of the issue, in the present case, it will be appropriate to refer Rule 343 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules which reads as follows:-

"343. Advertisement:- (a) No illuminated or other advertisement shall be carried or displayed on any motor vehicle except with the permission in writing of, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed by, the Transport Authority which has issued the permit in the case of a transport vehicle having valid permit or the Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction the vehicle is normally kept in the case of other motor vehicle;

Provided that any permission granted under this rule shall be without prejudice to rule 106 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989;

Provided further that no such permission is necessary if the vehicle does not carry or display the advertisement for hire or reward and the advertisement is not illuminated;

Provided also that in the case of stage carriage, no advertisement shall be carried, except inside the vehicle and rear portion of exterior body.

(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(a), the Government may authorise the use of motor vehicle for carrying or displaying illuminated or non-illuminated advertisement for hire or reward on a specified route or routes or in a specified area within the State generally, or for any specified purpose and specified period.

(c) The fee for granting permission under sub-rule (a) shall be as prescribed in the Table under rule 368 for each advertisement for period not exceeding one year."

It is further submitted that no advertisement of any kind can be displayed on the front or back glass screens of the vehicles resulting in braking of light contrary to the rules. In this regard Rule 100(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 has been referred to and it reads as follows:-

"(2) The glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50% and shall conform to Indian Standards."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the attention of the court the advertisements that are carried or displayed on the motor vehicles contrary to the above stated rules. It is stated that the competent authority has not granted the permission in writing with or without conditions, restrictions for display of the advertisements. In any event, it is stated that in many of the vehicles run by the State and the private operators, the glass window screens are covered by advertisements which not only restricts the transmission of the light into the vehicle and is a source of major distraction to the other road users, particularly, drivers of the other vehicles. In this context, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. At the time of hearing of the case, the petitioner brought to the attention of the court the letter of the District Collector, Coimbatore in response to the information sought for





















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top