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

1990 Supreme(All) 371

High Court Of Allahabad
V.K.Khanna, R.A.Sharma, JJ.
Krishna Gopal - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority – Respondent
Civil Misc Writ Petition No 6513 of 1990
Decided on : May 24,1990

Advocates appeared:
A.R.Dube

The RTA has the power to impose model conditions on stage carriage permits under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 72(2) - SECTION 59 - MODEL CONDITION - IMPOSITION BY TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES - VALIDITY - POWER OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO SPECIFY AGE LIMIT OF MOTOR VEHICLES - SCOPE - DISTINCTION - ARBITRARINESS AND DISCRIMINATION - APPEAL TO STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the model condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to impose such a condition and that the impugned condition was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the RTA was justified in imposing the model condition as it was within its powers under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to grant a permit for a stage carriage of 'specified description'. The court also held that Section 59 of the Act, which empowers the Central Government to specify the age limit of motor vehicles, does not conflict with Section 72(2) and that the two provisions have different purposes and fields of operation.

Issues: 1. Whether the RTA had the jurisdiction to impose the model condition? 2. Whether the model condition was arbitrary and discriminatory?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the RTA had the jurisdiction to impose the model condition as it was within its powers under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to grant a permit for a stage carriage of 'specified description'. The court also held that Section 59 of the Act, which empowers the Central Government to specify the age limit of motor vehicles, does not conflict with Section 72(2) and that the two provisions have different purposes and fields of operation. 2. The court held that the question of arbitrariness and discrimination involved the question of facts which require scrutiny and investigation of facts. The petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 89 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988, against the condition. The appellate court is better forum for deciding the question of facts after summoning the records of various routes and other papers.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The stay order granted by the court was vacated.

JUDGMENT :

R.A.Sharma, J.

1. Petitioner alongwith others was granted permanent stage carriage permit on Ghiror Eka-Basundhara route by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.), Meerut on 20 1- 1990 with certain conditions. By condition no. 2 it was provided that the vehicle should not be more than seven years old for 'A' class route, more than ten years old for 'B' class route and more than fifteen years old for 'C class route. In this connection that R. T. A. has also directed that the aforesaid model conditions will not apply to those grantees who were plying on the route in question on the basis of temporary permits. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging aforesaid model condition imposed by R. T. A. on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to impose such a condition and the impugned condition is arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. When this writ petition was filed before this court learned Standing Counsel was granted time to seek instructions. Petition was, thereafter, listed on 28-3-1990 on which date learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks time for filing couter affidavit and this court granted the following interim order in favour of petitioner :-

"In view of the averments made in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit that no Notification under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 has been published so far, we direct that respondents shall not enforce condition no. 2 in resolution dated 20-1-90 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Agra and also shall not refuse to issue permit to the petitioner for that reason alone,"

The State has not filed any counter affidavit. As the question of imposing model condition by transport authorities is coming up frequently before the court we have decided to decide the writ petition and we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court.

Section 72 (2) of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the R. T. A. to grant a permit for stage carriage of specified description'. Section 72 (2) is as follows :

"The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to the rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the. following conditions." Section 48 (3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is quoted below, contains the similar provisions : "The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriage of a specified description or for one of more particular stage carriages and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions."

3. This court in Masiullah v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1967 Allahabad 128 laid down that the expression 'specified description' in Section 48 (3) of the old Act, does not cover the year of manufacture or model of the vehicle, consequently the model condition imposed by Transport Authority was declared ultra vires. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari v. The State Transport Authority TJ. P., 1978 TAG 439.

4. Ultimately the matter was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 800, where the question involved was whether the transport authorities can impose model condition while granting Mini bus permit. Honourable Supreme Court upheld this condition by holding that.

"The State's neglect in this area of policing public transport is deplorable but when it does act by prescribing a condition the court cannot be persuaded into little legalism and harmful negativism. The short question is whether the prescription that the bus shall be at least a seven year old model one is relevant to the condition of t











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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