Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 756 (MP)

Mukesh Singh Mahore v. State of M. P.

2019-11-02

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER 1. This order shall govern the disposal of WP. 11499.2019 and WP. 12420.2019. 2. The present petition (WP. 12420.2019) has been filed by the bus-operators owning fleet of buses, many of which are used as school buses. 2.1 Challenge herein is to Annexure P-1 which is refusal of Competent Authority i.e. RTO Gwalior (M.P.) to issue fitness certificate in respect of one of the buses bearing Registration No. MP07-P-0598, which the petitioners propose to use as a school bus. 3. The Competent Authority while declining to issue fitness certificate referred to rule 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. For ready reference and convenience, said rule 164 is reproduced below: "164. Width of doors and Fitment of Emergency exit Window/door. - (1) Every public service vehicle, private service vehicle, contract carriage and educational institution vehicle shall be fitted with separate entrance and exit doors located on the left side of the vehicle and having at least 53 centimeters width and of sufficient height: Provided that the said provision shall not apply to such motor cab and vehicle which have been issued All India Tourist Permit under sub-section (9) of section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Every Public Service Vehicles, Private Service Vehicle, Contract Carriage and Vehicles of Educational Institutions except the vehicles designed and manufactured under rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989; shall have an emergency door on right side of the vehicle with a size of minimum 59x90 cm as required under sub-rule (4) of rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: Provided that the restriction imposed by sub-rule (1a), in so far as, they relates to the stage carriage registered before coming into force of the said rules shall not apply." 3.1 The aforesaid Rule 164 was amended with effect from 5.1.2012 prior to which there was no specification of the number of doors for a public service vehicle, private service vehicle, contract carriage and educational institution vehicle. 3.2 Introduction of amendment to rule 164 mandatorily provided for separate entrance and exit doors located on the left side of the vehicle having specific dimensions as prescribed. 3.3 The apparent object behind the said amendment is to ensure added safety and security to the passengers travelling in the vehicles in question including educational institution vehicle. 3.2 Introduction of amendment to rule 164 mandatorily provided for separate entrance and exit doors located on the left side of the vehicle having specific dimensions as prescribed. 3.3 The apparent object behind the said amendment is to ensure added safety and security to the passengers travelling in the vehicles in question including educational institution vehicle. 3.4 Pertinently, the petitioners have not assailed the validity of the aforesaid Rule 164 in the present petitions and thus adjudication herein deserves to take place on the said amended Rule 164 as it stands in the statute books. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to rule 125C of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the Code of Practice for Bus Body Design and Approval which inter alia provides for educational institution buses to be of type IV which are made of specification of mix of or any of Type I/Type II/Type III. 4.1 Bare perusal of Rule 125C of 1989 Rules reveals that it does not in specific terms provide for any number of doors necessary in a particular type of vehicle, but merely lays down the structure and design of the bus to adhere to certain prescribed norms. 4.2 The norms as provided aforesaid in the Code vide Annexure P-3 prescribe in para 2.2.1.1.6.1 for atleast two service doors or apertures for Type I vehicle, whereas in Type II and Type III vehicle the minimum doors or apertures prescribed is one. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 164 of 1994 Rules comes in conflict with the Central Rules and the said Code and thus the installation of two doors in school buses cannot be insisted upon. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and analysing the statutory provisions textually and contextually, this Court has no manner of doubt that there is no conflict. The conflict or confusion as projected is a mere figment of imagination of the petitioners. 6.1 The Central Rules and the Code prescribe the number of doors as 1/2 for different types of buses as the minimum requirement and not the maximum. Thus, no rule position shall be violated if the competent authority for the sake of safety and security insists for more than one door in public service vehicle, private service vehicle especially school buses which carry tender school going children who are the future of this nation. 7. Thus, no rule position shall be violated if the competent authority for the sake of safety and security insists for more than one door in public service vehicle, private service vehicle especially school buses which carry tender school going children who are the future of this nation. 7. Rule 164 of 1994 Rules has been followed by the RTO, Gwalior by declining issuance of fitness certificate which cannot be found fault with. 8. The present petitions, accordingly, have no force and are dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each petition to be deposited by the petitioners with Registry of this Court in favour of the legal aid within a period of fifteen days from today, failing which this matter be listed in "directions" for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. .................