Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 55 (KER)

Rashinlal v. The Regional Transport Authority

2004-02-11

CYRIAC JOSEPH, K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

body2004
Judgment :- Cyriac Joseph, J. 1. Since a common issue arises in all these Writ Appeals, they are being disposed of through a common judgment. 2. The appellants are stage carriage operators operating their vehicles in different Districts of the State of Kerala on the basis of stage carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. They feel aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport Authority to introduce a new restriction that every vehicle covered by a stage carriage permit granted or renewed or counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority shall not be of more than 15 years old reckoned from the date of its initial registration. Apprehending that they will not be allowed to operate the vehicle as a Stage Carriage on the ground that the vehicle is more than 15 years old, the appellants filed Original Petitions praying for direction to the Regional Transport Authorities not to insist on the above mentioned restriction and to allow them to operate the vehicles as stage carriages till the expiry of the period of the permit even if the vehicle is more than 15 years old. In the Original Petitions, the appellants challenged the power and jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authorities to impose such a restriction regarding the age of the vehicle. They also contended that in the absence of such a specific condition attached to the permit issued in respect of the vehicle a new condition regarding the age of the vehicle cannot be imposed by a general decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority. It was also contended that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Raghavan v. R.T.O, Kollam, 2001 (2) KLT 209, the vehicles should be allowed to operate as stage carriages for a period of two years from the date of completing the age of 15 years. Pointing out that the period of time granted by the High Court and extended by the Government expires on different dates in different Districts, the appellants alleged discrimination in the matter of enforcing the above mentioned restriction. In some cases, the petitioners also challenged the action of the respondents in granting renewal of permit only subject to the condition that the vehicle would be replaced by a later model vehicle within a stipulated period. 3. In some cases, the petitioners also challenged the action of the respondents in granting renewal of permit only subject to the condition that the vehicle would be replaced by a later model vehicle within a stipulated period. 3. The Original Petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 10th July, 2003. In the judgment dated 10-7-2003, the learned Single Judge rejected the contentions of the Writ Petitioners and directed that the Government or the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authorities shall not grant any further extension of time permitting the operation of vehicles which are aged 15 years or more as stage carriage for any period beyond the time already granted by the Court and the Government. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in O.P.No.29922 of 2000 and connected cases reported in 2001 (2) K.L.T. 209, the learned Single Judge has held that the Regional Transport Authorities are competent to fix the age of the vehicle as a condition for grant of permit and that such a condition can be imposed by means of a general order. According to the learned Single Judge, in view of the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench the Original Petitions were liable to be dismissed on merits. The learned Single Judge also rejected the request for further extension of time for replacement of the vehicles. According to the learned Single Judge, in the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench, a period of two years from the date of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority was granted to replace the old vehicles and hence sufficient time was given to the operators to arrange later model vehicles. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Government had further extended the time by six months though there was no justification for such extension. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention that if the old vehicles are taken out of the road without replacement by equal number of vehicles it will cause inconvenience to the public and also will lead to unemployment of motor transport workers. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention that if the old vehicles are taken out of the road without replacement by equal number of vehicles it will cause inconvenience to the public and also will lead to unemployment of motor transport workers. According to the learned Single Judge, large number of cases are coming before the Court contending that tax paid stage carriages are remaining idle for want of permits and therefore, there will not be any difficulty in substituting the old vehicles with new vehicles. The learned Single Judge is of the view that any further extension will only defeat the laudable object of public safety that motivated the Regional Transport Authorities to impose such a restriction regarding the age of the vehicles operating as stage carriages. Regarding the validity of the permits consequent upon the non-replacement of old vehicles within the time granted by the Court and the Government, the learned Single Judge has held that in the absence of any stipulation in the permit or in the general order issued by the Regional Transport Authorities stating that failure to replace the vehicles within the stipulated time will result in automatic cancellation of the permit, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authorities to publish a general notification stating that in the event of non-replacement of old vehicles within the time stipulated by the Regional Transport Authority and extended by the Court and by the Government the permits granted would stand automatically cancelled on expiry of the due date for replacement of old vehicles. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Regional Transport Authority may give reasonable extension for the validity of the period depending on the steps taken by the operator for purchase of chassis, construction of body, obtaining clearances etc. for resuming operation with new or later model vehicles. The learned Single Judge has further observed that in such cases, the Regional Transport Authorities should authorise the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to issue substituted temporary permit to those who are ready to operate vehicles in the said vacancies. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has directed that after 31st July, 2003 none of the stage carriage operators whose time for replacement of the old vehicles is over should be allowed to operate the vehicle which is more than 15 years old. 4. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has directed that after 31st July, 2003 none of the stage carriage operators whose time for replacement of the old vehicles is over should be allowed to operate the vehicle which is more than 15 years old. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the averments in the memorandum of Writ Appeals and the submissions made by the learned counsel, we do not find any valid reason to entertain these Writ Appeals. We agree with the decision of the learned Single Judge to dismiss the Original Petition and also with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. In our view, there is no merit in the contentions of the appellants and the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, in the decision reported in 2001 (2) K.L.T. 209 a Division Bench of this Court has held that the expression “specified description” appearing in Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has to be understood as taking any model of the vehicle also with reference to its age and that the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to impose a condition as to the age of the vehicle while granting the permit for a stage carriage. It has also been held that safety and convenience of the passengers who travel in a stage carriage, apart from the road worthiness of the stage carriage, is certainly a relevant factor that has to weigh with the Regional Transport Authorities while granting a stage carriage permit. It is further held that for the mere reason that it is not specifically prescribed under the Rules it cannot be said that the Regional Transport Authorities acted illegally in imposing such a restriction since under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act it is well within its powers to insist for a vehicle of a specified description. Analyzing the issue from the point of public interest, the Division Bench found substance in the contention raised by the Government Pleader in support of the restriction imposed by the Regional Transport Authorities. The Division Bench had no hesitation to hold that the fixation of the model of a stage carriage with reference to its age was a reasonable restriction and to reject the challenge of the petitioners based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench had no hesitation to hold that the fixation of the model of a stage carriage with reference to its age was a reasonable restriction and to reject the challenge of the petitioners based on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The issue before the Division Bench was the validity of the imposition of a model condition by different Regional Transport Authorities to the effect that no permit will be granted, renewed, counter-signed or varied and no request for concurrence will be entertained in respect of stage carriages which are more than 15 years old as reckoned from the date of initial registration. Though the Division Bench upheld the decision of the Regional Transport Authorities not to permit a vehicle which is more than 15 years old to operate as a Stage Carriage, considering that it was a new restriction introduced by the Regional Transport Authorities, the Division Bench directed that the operators will be granted a period of two years to replace their vehicles and that the period of two years will run from the respective dates of the decision by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. We do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the Division Bench in the above mentioned decision. The learned Single Judge was right and justified in dismissing the Original Petition relying on the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench. 6. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the period of two years granted in the above mentioned decision of the Division Bench should be counted from the date of completing the age of 15 years. It was specifically stated in the decision of the Division Bench that the period of two years will run from the respective dates of the decision by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. The said concession was allowed by the Court in the light, of the provision contained in Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act that while insisting on a condition that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used, the continued use of any vehicle operating on that date shall not be prevented for a period of two years from the date of publication of the approved specifications. It was also clarified by the Court that the above benefit was available only in the case of any vehicle operating as on the date of introduction of the new condition. Therefore, the intention of the court was not to grant a further period of two years in the case of all vehicles after they completed 15 years of age. The intention was to remove the hardships and difficulties which may be faced by the operator of a vehicle operating as a stage carriage on the date of introduction of the restriction regarding the age of vehicle. No such concession or benefit can be claimed in respect of a 15 year old vehicle after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of decision of the Regional Transport Authority imposing the restriction regarding the age of stage carriage vehicles. 7. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that further extension of time should be granted to operate the 15 year old vehicle as a stage carriage in view of the hardships and difficulties of the appellants. First of all, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, any further extension of time will be against public interest. Secondly, after considering various representations submitted by the stage carriage operators the Government itself extended the time for replacing the old vehicles by a period of three months as per G.O.(Ms).No.22/02/Tran. Dated 4-9-2002. A further period of three months was granted as per G.O.(Ms).No.41/02/Tran. Dated 18-12-2002 and G.O.(Ms).No.5/03/Tran. Dated 10-2-2003. In fact, such extension was granted by the Government subject to the condition that in order to avail such benefit of extension for the renewal of permit, the stage carriage owners shall execute a bond with the Secretaries of respective Regional Transport Authorities to the effect that old vehicles will be replaced within the time limit and will not request for further extension of time for replacement. According to the details furnished by the Government Pleader, the dates of decision of the Regional Transport Authorities and the dates of expiry of the time allowed as per the above Government orders are given below. 8. According to the details furnished by the Government Pleader, the dates of decision of the Regional Transport Authorities and the dates of expiry of the time allowed as per the above Government orders are given below. 8. We also do not find any merit in the contention that the fixation of different dates in different districts for the expiry of the period during which the 15 year old vehicles are allowed to operate as stage carriages, is discriminatory. Such difference in dates of expiry of the period is due to the difference in the dates on which the age restriction was introduced by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. A uniform period of two years and six months from the date of introduction of the age restriction was granted in the case of all vehicles. Hence there is no discrimination involved in the matter. 9. There is also no force in the contention that the impugned restriction is discriminatory since 15 year old vehicles can be operated as contract carriages and differentiation between stage carriages and contract carriages or school buses cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or irrational. 10.We do not find any illegality in the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authorities to introduce the restriction that vehicles which are aged 15 years or more cannot be operated as stage carriage. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authorities are competent to take a general decision and to implement it. The mere fact that such a condition was not imposed at the time of issuing the permit will not stand in the way of enforcing the above mentioned restriction in the case of vehicles in respect of which stage carriage permits had already been granted. Moreover, considering the hardships and difficulties that may be caused to the operators due to the sudden introduction of such a restriction, the High Court itself directed that the operators will be granted a period of two years for replacement of their vehicles. The said period was extended by the Government by a further period of six months. Moreover, considering the hardships and difficulties that may be caused to the operators due to the sudden introduction of such a restriction, the High Court itself directed that the operators will be granted a period of two years for replacement of their vehicles. The said period was extended by the Government by a further period of six months. 11.In the case of operators who were granted the permit or was granted renewal of the permit subject to the above mentioned restriction regarding age of the vehicle or subject to the condition that the vehicle shall be replaced within a stipulated period, the operators have no right to seek any relief from the court against the enforcement of such restriction or condition. 12. In the light of the above discussion. We hold that there is no merit in these Writ Appeals and the Writ Appeals are therefore dismissed.