Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Mad) 2980

High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. JAICHANDREN
Tamilnadu Nursery Primary Matriculation & Higher Secondary Schools Association Rep by its State General, Chennai
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Home (Transport-v) Department Secretariat, Chennai
W.P.No.241 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 W.P.Nos.489 to 492 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.2,2,3 and 3 of 2011 W.P.No.634 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011, W.P.No.1006 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011, W.P.No.2211 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2011, W.P.No.2334 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, W.P.No.3260 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, W.P.Nos.3463 and 3464 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1,1,2 and 2 of 2011 W.P.No.3479 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, W.P.No.4037 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
Decided on : 27-06-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Mr. M. Venkadeshan, M/s. Profex Associates Advocate, Mr. K. Surendar Mr. A. Jenasenan Mr. I.C. Vasudevan Mr. Muthumani Doraisami Mr. S. Natanarajan Mr. Muthumani Doraisami Mr. Muthumani Doraisami Mr. K. Hariharan Mr. M. Palani Mr. Muthumani Doraisami Ms. B. Saraswati Mr. A. Ganesan Mr. A. Ganesan Mr. A. Ganesan Mr. R. Suresh Kumar Mr. S. Kumara Devan Mr. R. Subramanian Mr. P. Mani Mr. J. Srinivasa Mohan Mr. V. Sivalingkam Mr. V. Sivalingkam, Advocates, Mr. R. Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader Assisted by Mr. N. Sakthivel Government Advocate.

The necessity of obtaining expert opinion before imposing restrictions on the speed of vehicles and the reasonableness prescribed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Speed Governors - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 112(2), Section 116 - The court discussed the validity of the government order fixing the maximum speed limit for vehicles used by educational institutions and the necessity of obtaining expert opinion before imposing such restrictions.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitions challenged the government order fixing the speed governors for medium and heavy passenger motor vehicles used by educational institutions, citing arbitrariness and invalidity under Section 112(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the government order lacked satisfaction from the State Government regarding the necessity of restricting the speed of vehicles, and that there was no reasonable difference between the classes of motor vehicles created by the State Government.
Issues: Validity of the government order fixing the maximum speed limit and the reasonableness prescribed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned government order was arbitrary, illegal, and void, and directed the respondents to keep the order in abeyance until the State Government obtains an opinion from an expert committee regarding the fixing of the upper speed limit for such vehicles.
Final Decision: The court ordered the respondents to keep the impugned government order in abeyance and restrained them from implementing it until the State Government passes an appropriate order with regard to the upper speed limit for the vehicles in question.

JUDGMENT :-

1. These writ petitions have been filed with regard to the fixing of speed Governors, as per the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, and to forbear the respondents from insisting on the petitioners fitting the speed governors, pursuant to the said government order, in respect of medium and heavy passenger motor vehicles.

2. The petitioners have raised various grounds while challenging the government order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, stating that the fixing of the maximum speed limit of 50 kms. per hour for the vehicles used by educational institutions, under Section 112(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is arbitrary and invalid in the eye of law.

3. It has been stated that Section 112 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum speed or below the minimum speed fixed for the vehicle under the Act. It has been provided that the maximum speed shall, in no case, exceed the maximum fixed for any motor vehicle or class or description of motor vehicles, by the Central Government, by a notification in the official Gazette.

4. Section 112(2) of the Act, enables the State Government to fix the maximum speed or minimum speed for motor vehicles or any specified class or description of motor vehicles, either generally or in a particular area or of a particular road or roads, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to restrict the speed of such vehicles in the interest of public safety, convenience or due to the condition of any road or bridge. Such restrictions can be imposed by way of a notification in the official Gazette and by causing, placing or erecting such signs at suitable places, under Section 116 of the Act.

5. Even though it is clear that, for the exercising of such powers, the State Government should be satisfied that the restriction of the speed of the vehicles is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience or the nature of the bridge or the road, from the impugned Government Order it cannot be seen that there was such satisfaction before the speed limit had been fixed by the State Government. Hence, the impugned order of the State Government is liable to be set aside.

6. It had also been stated that the State Government had requested the Government of India to consider the necessity of enhancing the maximum speed limit of 65 kms. per hour fixed by the Government of India, based on the report of the expert committee constituted by the State Government.

7. Even though the statistics relied on by the respondents, relating to the increase in the rate of accidents in the State of Tamilnadu may be true, it has to be noted that there are a number of contributory factors for such increase in the number of accidents. The reduction of the speed limit to 50 kms. per hour, in respect of medium and heavy motor vehicles, owned by educational institutions, by way of the fixing of the speed governors, cannot be a complete solution. Various aspects have to be studied and decisions should be taken, after obtaining the necessary suggestions from a committee of experts, who are well versed in the field.

8. It has been further stated that the respondents have made it clear that the road conditions in the State of Tamil Nadu are of a very high standard, as compared to a number of other states in India. Further, the vehicles used by the educational institutions for transporting the students are also efficient and the quality of the vehicles are of a high standard.

9. As seen from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the State Government had constituted an expert committee, which had recommended that a request may be made to the Government of India to increase the upper speed limited fixed by the Government of India, at 65 kms. per hour. While so, it is in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document