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

2004 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1521

KERALA HIGH COURT
Dr. K. B. Muhamed Kutty, J
Calicut Islamic R. H. S. School v. STA
Writ Petition (Civil) 14761/2004 | Writ Petition (Civil) 14765/2004



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. K. B. Muhamed Kutty
For the Respondents: M. A. Fayaz

The court upholds the authority's power to impose safety conditions on school bus permits under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:The court examines the legality of conditions imposed by the State Transport Authority on school bus permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners challenge the authority's power in issuing conditions, including the requirement for Speed Governors and driver qualifications. The court finds the conditions serve public safety and affirms the authority's power to impose them under Sections 68 and 76 of the Act. The petitioners are advised to seek relaxations as needed; thus, the writ petitions are dismissed.

1Common questions are raised in these Writ Petitions and therefore, they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2The petitioners are educational institutions. They own a few school buses, which are regularly operated for the conveyance of the students. Originally, no permit was necessary for using buses for carrying children to and from the educational institutions. Later, an amendment was introduced to the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 2000, making it obligatory to take permits for those buses also.

3The State Transport Authority, by a circular, formulated certain conditions to be attached to the permits of buses of the educational institutions. The said circular is produced as Ext. P1 in these Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions are filed, challenging mainly, the said circular.

4WP (C) 14761/2004; Permits have been granted to the petitioner's school buses on 4.5.2004, relying on Ext. P1 circular. The conditions contained in Ext. P1 have been incorporated in those permits. Copies of those permits are produced as Ext. P2 series. The petitioner submits that Ext. P1 circular is ultra vires of S.67 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is contended that none of the provisions in the Act authorises the State Transport Authority to issue Ext. P1. The second ground urged against Ext. P1 is that the restriction imposed in the employment of drivers is unreasonable and arbitrary. The drivers are already appointed and are working without any room for any complaint. They cannot be terminated from service and there cannot be any fresh recruitment in their place. The third ground relates to the condition regarding Speed Governor. It is submitted that there is shortage of Speed Governors in the market. The private buses have not, so far, installed the Speed Governors. Therefore, it is unreasonable to insist that school buses should fix them. The fourth ground urged in the Writ Petition to impugn Ext. P1 is against the condition relating to the employment of an able bodied Attendant for the additional door. If the said provision is enforced, the additional door will have to be permanently removed. The employment of an additional hand will increase the cost of operation of the buses, which will ultimately fall on the shoulders of the parents. On the above grounds, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P1.

5 The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that no counter affidavit is necessary in this case, as a, pure question of law alone has been raised.

6 I heard Dr. K. B. Muhamed Kutty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. A. Fayaz, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7The learned counsel for the petitioner - reiterated the grounds raised in the Writ Petition and asserted that the transport authorities do not have any power to impose the above conditions under any of the provisions of the Act. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the State Transport Authority has taken the impugned decision, relying on the order of the Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Onion of India (1997 (8) SCC 770). It is submitted that the conditions were imposed in public interest and he supported the circular, relying on S.72(2) Mix) and 76(3)(iii) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8The directions issued by the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision, to the police and other authorities entrusted with the enforcement of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the National Capital Region. Delhi, are the following :
(a) No heavy and medium transport vehicles, and light goods vehicles being four-wheelers would be permitted to operate on the roads of the NCR and NCT, Delhi, unless they are fitted with suitable speed-control devices to ensure that they do not exceed the speed limit of 40 kmph. This will not apply to transport vehicles operating on inter State permits and national goods permits. Such exempted vehicles would, however, be confined to such routes and such timings during day and night as the






























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