Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 191 (KER)

Raghavan v. R. T. O. , Kollam

2001-03-28

K.K.USHA, KURIAN JOSEPH

body2001
Judgment :- Kurian Joseph, J. Imposition of a model condition by different Regional Transport Authorities to the effect that no permit will be granted, renewed, countersigned, varied or request for concurrence entertained in respect of stage carriages which are more than 15 years old as reckoned from the date of initial registration is the common issue under challenge in all these cases. 2. At the outset may refer to the relevant portion in the impugned order Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 620 of 2001: "This authority is very much concerned with the ever increasing road accidents especially those involving stage carriages. This authority is enjoined to look into the objects of the M.V. Act, 1988, which includes Road safety standards, Pollution Control measures, safety standards of vehicles and its components etc. The main object of the Act is thus "public safety and convenience". To achieve the above said objectives it is desirable among other things to eliminate very old vehicles used for carrying passengers from the road in a phased manner. This authority is not indulging in condemning the vehicle under the provisions of S.59 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the contrary a condition is imposed by way of specifying stage carriages for which permits will be issued in future and the permits of which would be renewed subject to the compliance of this prescription which is within the powers of the R.T.A. under S.72(2) of the M.V. Act. All the contentions advanced before us have been examined in detail. We are convinced that a later model stage carriage is a better safeguard for ensuring reliability and efficiency of service because new model incorporates new devices to reduce danger and promote comfort. The advantages offered by new technology should be exposed and made available to the public." 3. n O.P.No. 34820 of 2000, the Regional Transport Authority stated as follows in the impugned order Ext. P7: "This Authority is convinced that an old model passenger vehicle packed with passengers and running is stiff competition with other vehicles, emitting pollutants violating exhaust emission standards is a potential source of danger to the public. Periodical maintenance, however deep, or inspection by Inspectors of Motor Vehicles Department once in a year would not help to ensure public safety in the case of very old buses. Periodical maintenance, however deep, or inspection by Inspectors of Motor Vehicles Department once in a year would not help to ensure public safety in the case of very old buses. Passengers of such buses are often denied the comfort and convenience offered by the latest technological development." As regards the restriction imposed, it is more or less in the following terms by all the Regional Transport Authorities: "A condition is imposed to every stage carriage permit that every vehicle covered by a permit granted, renew or countersigned by this Authority shall be of not more than 15 years old, reckoned from the date of its initial registration. In the case of renewal of permit, a maximum period of 6 months may be allowed by the RTA for replacement of such vehicles by a later model vehicle in deserving cases." 4. It is the case of the petitioners that such a restriction imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. However, it is the common case of the petitioners that such a power to restrict the life of a motor vehicle is provided only to the Central Government, under S.59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence the Regional Transport Authority (for short'the R.T.A. ) lacks jurisdiction to impose any such restriction regarding the life of a stage carriage. It is submitted that once a transport vehicle is issued the certificate of fitness under S.56, which is to be obtained every year under R.62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 thereinafter referred to as 'the Central rules'), the R.T.A. is obliged to grant permit, of course, subject to the considerations under S.71 of the Act. And the only conditions which could be attached to a permit are those enumerated under S.72(2) of the Act. Since the age of the motor vehicle is not a prescribed condition for the grant of a stage carriage permit, once the fitness of a motor vehicle is certified under S.56 of the Act, it is submitted, the petitioners are entitled to grant of permit subject to the considerations under S.71 of the Act. 5. However, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the R.T.A. is empowered under S.72(2) of the Act to specify the model of a stage carriage. 6. 5. However, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the R.T.A. is empowered under S.72(2) of the Act to specify the model of a stage carriage. 6. S.59 of the Act reads thus: "59. Power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle.- (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made there under: Provided that the Central Government may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicles. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1), the Central Government may, having regard to the purpose of motor vehicle, such as, display or use for the purposes of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt, by a general or special order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehicle from the operation of sub-s.(1) for the purpose to be stated in the notification. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in S.56, no prescribed authority or authorised testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle, in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-s.(1)." It may be noticed that S.59 which appears under Chapter IV of the Act, bearing the title "Registration of Motor Vehicles", deals generally with all the motor vehicles. Once a motor vehicle completes the period of life as notified by the Central Government, then "the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder". Further, as can be seen from sub-s.(3), there is a total prohibition in the matter of grant of certificate of fitness in respect of vehicles notified under the Section. In short, a notification under S.59 of the Act terminates the life of a motor vehicle and declares its death. Further, as can be seen from sub-s.(3), there is a total prohibition in the matter of grant of certificate of fitness in respect of vehicles notified under the Section. In short, a notification under S.59 of the Act terminates the life of a motor vehicle and declares its death. In the instant cases, the R.T.A. concerned was not obviously acting under S.59 because here the restriction is only a limited one, to the extent of using a vehicle aged more than 15 years as a stage carriage. In other words, the life of the stage carriage as a motor vehicle is not terminated by such a restriction. Thus, it can be seen that the purpose of S.59 is entirely different from what is put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Then the question is, what is the source of power for the R.T.A. to impose such a restriction regarding the life of a motor vehicle to be used as a stage carriage. As can be seen from the impugned orders, it is by virtue of the power under S.72(2) of the Act the R.T.A. has acted. S.72 reads as follows: 72. Grant of stage carriage permits. - (1) Subject to the provisions of S.71, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under S.70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit: Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. (2) 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 any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that the operation of the stage carriage shall be commenced with effect from a specified date; (iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions; (iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area; (v) that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify; (vi) that within municipal limits and such other areas and places as may be prescribed, passengers or goods shall not be taken up or set down except at specified points; (vii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the stage carriage, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (viii) the weight and nature of passengers' luggage that shall be carried free of charge, the total weight of luggage that may be carried in relation to each passenger, and the arrangements that shall be made for the carriage of luggage without causing inconvenience to passengers; (ix) the rate of charge that may be levied for passengers' luggage in excess of the free allowance; (x) that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used: Provided that the attachment of this condition to a permit shall not prevent the continued use, for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications, of any vehicle operating on that date; (xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles; (xii) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in the stage carriage in addition to or to the conclusion of passengers; (xiii) that fares shall be charged in accordance with the approved fare table; (xiv) that a copy of, or extract from, the fare table approved by the Regional Transport Authority and particulars of any special fares or rates of fares so approved for particular occasions shall be exhibited on the stage carriage and at specified stands and halts,; (xv) that tickets bearing specified particulars shall be issued to passengers and shall show the fares actually charged and that records of tickets issued shall be kept in a specified manner; (xvi) that mails shall be carried on the vehicle subject to such conditions (including conditions as to the time in which mails are to be carried and charges which may be levied) as may be specified; (xvii) the vehicles to be kept as reserve by the holder of the permit to maintain the operation / and to provide for special occasions; (xviii) the conditions subject to which vehicle may be used as a contract carriage; (xix) that specified arrangements shall be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of vehicle; (xx) that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for such use. (xxi) that the conditions of the permit shall not be departed from, save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority; (xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,- (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof; (xxiii) that the holder of a permit shall furnish to the Regional Transport Authority such periodical returns, statistics and other information as the State Government may from time to time prescribe; (xxiv) any other conditions which may be prescribed". 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the enumerated conditions being only as above, which do not include a condition regarding the age of a stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority is not competent to impose a condition regarding age of a vehicle as 15 years for the stage carriage. It is also submitted that by virtue of S.2(32) defining the word "prescribed", meaning prescribed by rules made under the Act, and as the Rules have not so far prescribed the age of a stage carriage as 15 years, the R.T.A. has acted totally without jurisdiction. Such conduct, according to the counsel, is arbitrary, apart from being unreasonable. 9. It is significant to note that S.72 of the Act appears in Chapter V, bearing the title "Control of Transport Vehicles". It is the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. K. Sasikumar that the expression "stage carriage of a specified description" appearing in S.72(2) of the Act empowers the R.T.A. to impose a restriction regarding the model of the vehicle. Such restriction is only a regulatory measure. The licensing authority, ie., the R.T.A. is well within its jurisdiction to impose such regulatory measures in order to safeguard public interest. The interest of the travelling public has to be given paramount consideration while granting permits to stage carriages. Such restriction is only a regulatory measure. The licensing authority, ie., the R.T.A. is well within its jurisdiction to impose such regulatory measures in order to safeguard public interest. The interest of the travelling public has to be given paramount consideration while granting permits to stage carriages. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1980 SC 800) and the decisions reported in Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur v. Sita Ram (AIR 1993 Rajasthan 76) and Bharath Kumar A. v. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (AIR 1995 Karnataka 264). 10. In the statement of objects and reasons it is provided that the Act intended to take care of, among other things, "concern for road safety standards, and pollution control measures". When the issue is analysed from the point of public interest, we find substance in the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. This Court cannot be oblivious of the alarming number of accidents involving private buses. In a recent study conducted by the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre, it is revealed that in the year 1999, there took place 6100 accidents involving private and mini buses, in which 607 persons died and 12021 were injured. Almost 17 accidents per day caused by private and mini buses in this small State necessarily calls for appropriate urgent preventive measures. 'Mechanical defect' is often posed as a reason for the accident. Certainly the age of the motor vehicle, as correctly understood by the R.T.A., is also one of the contributing factors. From that point of view, we have no hesitation to hold that fixation of the model of a stage carriage with reference to its age is a reasonable restriction, thus defeating the challenge based on Arts.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once such a restriction is imposed, it would run counter to the liberalised scheme for grant of stage carriage permits intended under the Act and would defeat the very purpose of the amendment of the 1939 Act. We are not included to accept the said contention. As already noted above, public interest demands that in view of the safety of the counter public, regulatory measures and reasonable restrictions such as imposition of age of a stage carriage are absolutely necessary. We are not included to accept the said contention. As already noted above, public interest demands that in view of the safety of the counter public, regulatory measures and reasonable restrictions such as imposition of age of a stage carriage are absolutely necessary. After all, the restriction is only to use the vehicle as a stage carriage, and after the expiry of the period granted by the R.T.A, to use the vehicle as a stage carriage, it is certainly open to the petitioners to put the vehicles for other purposes. 12. It is pertinent in this context to note that while dealing with the grant of permits, only in the case of stage carriage permit under S.72(2) of the Act, the expression "may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description" is used. Such a restriction is not there in S.74 in the case of contract carriage permit or under S.79 in the case of goods carriage permit. In other words, the law intends that the vehicle of a specified description need be insisted only in the case of a stage carriage and not in the case of other transport vehicles like contract carriage or goods carriage. 13. Then the question is whether the expression "specified description" would take in the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. Expressions like type, class, description etc., though profusely used, are not defined under the Act or Rules. R.48 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules provides for the certificate of registration in Form 23. It can be seen from Form 23 that the initial requirement in the certificate of registration is for "Brief Description of Vehicle"(e.g., Fiat/ Ambassador/ Maruti car, Tata/Ashok Leyland Goods Vehicle, Trailer, Motor Cycle with/without gear, Motor cycle with side car etc.). After the address of the dealer and the registered owner, space is provided for the 'Detailed Description', which contains as many as 22 items. Item No.4 is 'Month and Year of Manufacture'. This is a definite indication as discernible from the Rules that the description takes in the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. It is not necessary to refer to the Lexicon meaning of the expression 'specified description' for understanding the purpose of the Act. Item No.4 is 'Month and Year of Manufacture'. This is a definite indication as discernible from the Rules that the description takes in the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. It is not necessary to refer to the Lexicon meaning of the expression 'specified description' for understanding the purpose of the Act. In other words, employing a purposive interpretation of the expression, it has to be held that 'specified description' as appearing in S.72(2) of the Act indicates also the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. That is why in the Form P.St. S.A., application for permits in respect of stage carriage/ reserve stage carriage as contemplated under R.143 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the requirement under item No. 7 is 'Type of Vehicle', also meaning thereby, the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. 14. In this context, it is significant also to note that in the notification issued by the Central Government-S.O. 451(E) dated 19th June, 1992 under S.41(4) of the act specifying the type of motor vehicle for the purpose of registration, S1.No.(viii) is given as 'Stage Carriages'. Hence while applying in Form P.St.S.A. for permit in respect of a stage carriage under R.143(a) of the Kerala Rules, under the description 'type of vehicle' what is intended is the model of the vehicle with reference to its age. 15. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, S.48(3) (S.72 of the 1988 Act) dealt with the grant of stage carriage permits. In the said analogous provision also there was the expression "may grant the permit for service of stage carriages of a specified description". The said description came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Antony v. R.T.A., Kottayarn (1960 KLJ 532). There the challenge was against a notification to the effect that "permits will be issued only to vehicles of 1957 or later model" and it was held as follows: "An agreement was advanced that the word 'types' cannot cover models; I do not see why it should not, if the word may be liberally interpreted. However, the words "specified description" in sub-s.(3) are of sufficient amplitude, as to cover a direction of the kind made. It is only reasonable, that such power should exist in a Regional Transport Authority, in the interest of the safety of the public". 16. However, the words "specified description" in sub-s.(3) are of sufficient amplitude, as to cover a direction of the kind made. It is only reasonable, that such power should exist in a Regional Transport Authority, in the interest of the safety of the public". 16. While analysing a similar condition prescribing age limit in the case of contract carriages, the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1980 SC 800) held that the year of the make and particulars of the model are part of the description. In the words of Krishna Iyer, J., the question has to be tackled in the wake of justice to the travelling public. "If Indian life is not ultra vires Indian law every condition to save life and limb is intra vires such salvatory provision. This perspective of social justice specifies the problem " In the said decision, referring to the decisions of Allahabad High Court it was held: "lexically read, it was held that the expression 'specified description' in S.48(3) did not cover, according to the dictionaries, the year of manufacture of the vehicle. We extract Black's Law Dictionary on'description' to show how the model of a vehicle is obviously a facet of its description. 'Description' means: (p. 532) A delineation or account of a particular subject by the recital of its characteristic accidents and qualities. So, dictionary versus dictionary leaves the matter at large, apart from the plain function of the Court to gather the meaning, not under the dictatorship of dictionaries but guided by the statutory purpose without being deflected by logomachic exercises, the mischief to be countered and the public interest to be advanced. We are clear that a latter model is a better safeguard and, more relevantly to the point, the year of the make and the particulars of the model are part of the description." 17. In a Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sheelchand & Co. We are clear that a latter model is a better safeguard and, more relevantly to the point, the year of the make and the particulars of the model are part of the description." 17. In a Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sheelchand & Co. v. State Transport Appellate Authority (AIR 1964 MP 8 at page 9) the issue has been succinctly dealt with in the following lines: "But the Regional Transport Authority's power to make the grant of a permit for the service of a stage carriage conditional on the vehicle to be used being a particular year of manufacture flows not from any of the clauses of sub-s.(3) of S.48 enumerating the conditions that may be attached but from the substantive provision of sub-s.(3) itself. That sub-section says that the Regional Transport Authority may grant a permit for the service of stage carriages of a specified description. If the stage carriage for which a permit can be granted has to be of a "specified description", then it follows that the Regional Transport Authority has the power to say that the stage carriage for which a permit has been granted shall be of a particular year of manufacture. The specific description of a stage carriage is not confined to its class, name, maker, number of cylinders or horse power, but also includes the year of manufacture. In the detailed description of a vehicle, which is to be inserted in the certificate of registration given in From G in the first schedule of manufacture be mentioned. The whole idea in requiring that the service of a stage carriage shall be run with a stage carriage of a particular year of manufacture is to ensure reliability and efficiency of the service and safety of the travelling public. Ss.47 and 48 of the Act, read together, clearly show that the statutory powers to issue permits with certain conditions of stage carriages are not meant for the benefit and protection of permit holders but are meant for the benefit of the general public. If the contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the result would be that a person who has obtained a permit for the service of a stage carriage, would be at liberty to run the service with ramshackle vehicle or with vehicles which are not road worthy. If the contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the result would be that a person who has obtained a permit for the service of a stage carriage, would be at liberty to run the service with ramshackle vehicle or with vehicles which are not road worthy. The running of a stage carriage service with such vehicles would be irregular, unreliable and would endanger the safety of the travelling public. Such a service would then be one being run in the interest of the permit holder and not for the benefit of the general public. In our opinion, the words "stage carriages of a specified description", which occur in S.48(3), are wide enough to give to the Regional Transport Authority power to attach to a permit, while granting it, a condition that the service shall be run with a stage carriage of a particular year of manufacture." 18. The expression 'specified description' used in the amended Act was the subject matter of interpretation in a Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharath Kumar A. v. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (AIR 1995 Karnataka 264). Repelling the contention that there is no notification under S.59 of the Act empowering a Regional Transport Authority to impose a restriction regarding the age of a stage carriage and also the contention that only enumerated conditions under S.72 could be imposed, it was held as follows: "S.72 of the Act empowers the R.T.A. to grant permit for a stage carriage of a 'specified description', subject to certain conditions which may be prescribed under the Rules. While granting registration what is primarily to be looked at is the roadworthiness of fitness of the vehicle so as not to affect public safety and convenience. However, while granting permits for a transport vehicle the authority may also take into consideration the safety and convenience of passengers who travel in such vehicle apart from roadworthiness and depending upon the nature of the permit that is granted by the authority concerned, a condition in this regard could be imposed by the said authority. Thus, the provisions of S.59 and S.72 operate in two different fields and the authorities acting under both the provisions can impose conditions relevant thereto including as to date of manufacture of the same." "8. Thus, the provisions of S.59 and S.72 operate in two different fields and the authorities acting under both the provisions can impose conditions relevant thereto including as to date of manufacture of the same." "8. The learned Single Judge while disposing of W.P. No. 11832/91 took the view that the R.T.A. being only a statutory authority cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to insist upon fulfillment of such conditions for grant of the permit. When such age qualification had not been prescribed under S.59 of the Act, i t was not open to the Authority concerned to impose such condition. With respect, we cannot subscribe to this view because even in the absence of Rules, if conditions could be prescribed in the permit and such conditions are reasonable and such power to impose conditions is traceable to the provisions of the Act itself, it cannot be said that such power is exercised by the authority beyond its powers. The expression 'Specified Description' used in S.72(2) of the Act is similar to such expression used in S.48(3) of the 1939 Act and that expression had been explained in several decisions. Specified description of a stage carriage is not confined to its class or make, but also includes the year of manufacture. In Subhash Chandra's case, the Supreme Court clearly spelt out that the expression 'Specific Description' would include the year of make and the particulars of the model as part of the description". 19. In the light of the above discussion, it has to be held that the expression 'specified description' appearing in S.72(2) of the Act has to be understood as taking in the model of the vehicle also with reference to its age. Hence the R.T.A. acted within its jurisdiction in imposing a condition as to the age of the vehicle while granting the permit for a stage carriage, since safety and convenience of passengers who travel in a stage carriage apart from the roadworthiness of the stage carriage is clearly a relevant factor that has to weigh with the R.T.A. while granting a permit. For the reason that it is not specifically prescribed under the Rules, it cannot be held that the R.T.A. acted illegally in imposing such a restriction, since under S.72(2) it is well within its powers to insist for a vehicle of a specified description. For the reason that it is not specifically prescribed under the Rules, it cannot be held that the R.T.A. acted illegally in imposing such a restriction, since under S.72(2) it is well within its powers to insist for a vehicle of a specified description. Hence the contention that the R.T.A. acted ultra vires its powers under S.72 of the Act cannot be counteranced. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (AIR 1995 SC 691), the restriction of age of motor vehicles is illegal. That was a case where the Bar Council of India introduced a rule debarring persons who have completed 45 years of age from enrolment as advocate. Obviously, there is no comparison between the issues. 21. Reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India (AIR 1999 SC 1167) is not at all relevant to the context. That was a case where the Apex Court considered the competency of the Bar Council of India in imposing a restriction for pre-enrolment training and apprenticeship before enrolment as advocate on the roll of a State Bar Council. As we have already held that the R.T.A. acted intra vires S.72 while imposing the restriction regarding the age, that contention has only to be repelled. 22. Banking on the decision reported in Mithilesh Carg v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 443), it was then contended that as the Apex Court has held the scheme of the Act as liberalised grant of stage carriage permits, the restrictions imposed are unreasonable. Pitted against the overall public interest, particularly the safety of the commuter public, it has to be seen that the restriction imposed is only a reasonable one and the right of an operator for liberalised grant of stage carriage permit has to be held as subservient to the considerations of public interest. 23. Though not much argument was advanced on the fixation of the age of a motor vehicle as 15 years, we find some useful source for such fixation in the Act itself. For e.g. in the case of a non-transport vehicle, S.41(7) of the Act provides that certificate of registration is valid only for a period of 15 years. 23. Though not much argument was advanced on the fixation of the age of a motor vehicle as 15 years, we find some useful source for such fixation in the Act itself. For e.g. in the case of a non-transport vehicle, S.41(7) of the Act provides that certificate of registration is valid only for a period of 15 years. Under R.88 of the Central Rules, no national permit is to be granted in respect of a goods carriage, other than multi-axle vehicle, which is more than 12 years old at any point of time; and no national permit is to be granted for a multi-axle goods carriage which is more than 15 years old at any point of time. Similarly, under R.82 of the Central Rules, a tourist permit in the case of a motor cab is valid only for 9 years and in the case of vehicles other than motor cab, it is valid for 8 years. So it is not as if there is no reference at all with regard to the fixation of age of a motor vehicle in relation to its use. 24. As already observed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, the competent authority, namely the Regional Transport Authority, after taking into consideration the relevant factors, has come to the conclusion that it would be just and appropriate to fix 15 years as the age of a vehicle to operate as a stage carriage. Cogent reasons also have been stated by the R.T.A. in order to arrive at such a decision. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that this is a new restriction altogether, introduced by the R.T.A. Under S.72(2)(x) while insisting for a condition in the permit for "vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications" it is provided that the attachment of such a condition should not prevent the continued use for a period of 2 years from the date of publication of the approved specifications. True, that is in the case of any vehicle operating as on the date of introduction of the new condition. But, at the same time, we have also to consider the impact of introduction of a new restriction regarding the age of a stage carriage on the existing operators. 25. True, that is in the case of any vehicle operating as on the date of introduction of the new condition. But, at the same time, we have also to consider the impact of introduction of a new restriction regarding the age of a stage carriage on the existing operators. 25. It is profitable to refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1998 SC 2963). Expressing grave concern over the growing air pollution caused by motor vehicles, on the basis of the report submitted by Sri. Bhure Lai, certain stringent directions were issued. But it may be seen that in order to avert hardships to operators, sufficient time was given for the implementation of the directions. We are of the view that existing operators have to be given some reasonable time for either finding out alternate use for their vehicles or even for diverting to other avocations. The Apex Court in M. C. Mehta's case gave almost 20 months' time for replacement of the old vehicles. As already noted by us, the Act also contemplates a period of two years when a new condition regarding the vehicle of a specified type is insisted. 26. In such circumstances, while upholding the power of the Regional Transport Authority under S.72(2) to insist for a vehicle of a specified description, i.e., restricting the age of the vehicle for the grant of permit for a stage carriage, we direct that the operators will be granted a period of two years for replacement of their vehicles. The period of two years will run from the respective dates of the decision by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The Original Petitions are disposed of as above.