Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1510 (ALL)

Anurudh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2018-07-08

PANKAJ MITHAL, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Punet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. The petitioners who are drivers and probably the owners of buses are running them on contract basis for the purposes of carrying school children to and fro According to them, their buses are being used solely for school purposes. 2. The petitioners are challenging the validity of Rule 222(D) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 as amended by the 26th Amendment and wants it to be declared ultra vires to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, they are seeking a direction that they should be issued fitness certificate and permit in respect of their vehicles beyond 10 years up to 15 years as has been provided for the educational institutions bus/vehicle. 3. It appears that for the educational institutions buses/vehicles, the rule provides that they can be used on road for 15 years from the date of their initial registration under a valid permit and fitness certificate whereas other diesel/CNG private bus/contract vehicles can only be used for a period of ten years from the date of initial registration. 4. Accordingly, the submission is that the period of use of the vehicles for 15 years and 10 years from the date of initial registration vis-a-vis the educational institutional buses and the other buses is arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. 5. The legislature in its wisdom has categorised the vehicles into two categories i.e., the educational/institutional vehicles and the other private/commercial or contract vehicles. This categorisation is for the reason that these two categories of vehicle form a separate class and cannot be equated. The use and running of educational institutional vehicles is very limited whereas other private/commercial or contract vehicles have a very wide and expensive use resulting in their speedy wear and tear. Therefore, the life of the two categories of vehicle has been provided differently. 6. In view of above, the classification of the two categories of vehicles is a reasonable and valid classification. Accordingly, we do not find that there is any arbitrariness or discrimination in the period fixed for the running of the aforesaid two categories of vehicles. 7. Therefore, the life of the two categories of vehicle has been provided differently. 6. In view of above, the classification of the two categories of vehicles is a reasonable and valid classification. Accordingly, we do not find that there is any arbitrariness or discrimination in the period fixed for the running of the aforesaid two categories of vehicles. 7. The submission that the vehicles of the petitioners are being solely used under a contract for school purposes and as such are not different from educational institution vehicles/buses cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the educational institutional bus has been defined -under Section 2 (11) of the Motor Vehicles Act which means an omnibus, which is owned by college, school or other educational institutions and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or the staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities. The vehicles owned and used by the petitioners are not the vehicles owned by the college/school or any educational institutions and, therefore, mere hiring of said vehicles by the educational institutions would not bring them within the purview of educational institutional buses as defined under the Act. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed.