2021 Supreme(All) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Preeti Dubey And 6 Others - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India Through Its Secretary Of Surface Road Transport - Respondent
WRIT A No. 7774 of 2020
Decided On : 24-02-2021

Point of law: prescription of standards relating to testing and approval for body building of buses/sleeper coaches, as provided under Rule 125C of the Rules, 1989 are applicable to all buses/sleeper coaches. These standards are also mandatory and an application for registration of a motor vehicle under Rule 47 (1) is to be mandatorily accompanied by a self certification of compliance of the bus body built on drive away chassis by the bus body builder to the provisions of the Code and practice for bus body design and approval AIS: 052 as amended from time to time.

Headnote:

Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 – Rules 136, 139 – Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 – Rule 125 – Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 111, 110 – Writ of certiorari – Writ petition has been filed praying for the reliefs writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Rampur i.e. Respondent No.4 – A writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the Additional Transport Commissioner (Revenue) Uttar Pradesh and order passed by Transport Commissioner, State of U.P. – A writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities not to interfere in the plying of the vehicles in question till such time the registration and fitness certificates are valid or notifications under Section 111 of the Act, 1988 are issued changing the norms.

Finding of the court: Rule 126, as substituted with effect from 26.03.1993, mandates that prototype of every motor vehicle is to be subject to test – Subrule (1) of Rule 47 mandates that an application for registration of a motor vehicle to the registering authority shall be accompanied by certain specified documents including (self certification) in prescribed Form 22B of compliance of the bus body built on a drive away chassis by the bus body builder to the provisions of the Code and practice for bus body design and approval AIS:052, as amended from time to time, which is provided for under clause (g) thereof. – It is therefore seen that the prescription of standards relating to testing and approval for body building of buses/sleeper coaches, as provided under Rule 125C of the Rules, 1989 are applicable to all buses/sleeper coaches – These standards are also mandatory and an application for registration of a motor vehicle under Rule 47 (1) is to be mandatorily accompanied by a self certification of compliance of the bus body built on drive away chassis by the bus body builder to the provisions of the Code and practice for bus body design and approval AIS: 052 as amended from time to time – Prescription of standards relating to testing and approval for body building as prescribed under Rule 125C and the other provisions referred to above, relate to safety standards and are of a mandatory nature with no exception or deviation in respect thereof being contemplated. – Circular issued by the Transport Commissioner U.P. and the subsequent circular issued by the Additional Transport Commissioner U.P. containing references to the aforementioned prescribed standards under the statutory rules which are mandatorily applicable to buses/sleeper coaches and the directions issued for inspection of the motor vehicles to ensure compliance thereof as a condition precedent for registration of the vehicles and further for cancellation of the certificate of fitness in cases of nonconformity with the prescribed standards, thus cannot be faulted with. – Notices issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Gorakhpur directing them to ensure conformity with the prescribed standards and specifications and to submit their vehicles for inspection failing which the certificate of fitness issued to them would be cancelled are of the consequential nature which have been issued for ensuring compliance of the standards which are of a mandatory nature, and therefore the validity of the notices cannot be questioned. – Challenge raised by the petitioners to the circulars and the notices also of the cannot be sustained.

Result: – Writ Petition Dismissed