Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 330 (MP)

Ramu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2023-03-02

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2023
JUDGMENT Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by Regional Transport Authority Gwalior in Case No.547/2022 and order dated 13.02.2023 passed the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in appeal No.10/2023 by which the regular permit has been refused on the ground that the vehicle owned by the petitioner does not confer to the specification mentioned in Rule 164(1) of M. P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1994. 2. By referring to proviso to Sub Rule (2) of Rule 164 of Rules 1994 it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said proviso makes it as clear as noonday that the provisions of Rule 164(1) of Rules 1994 shall not apply to the vehicles which were registered prior to coming into force of sub Rule (1) of Rule 164 of Rules 1994. 3. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/caveator that there is a misconception in the arguments advanced by petitioner. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 164 of Rules 1994 which deals with an emergency window has no application to Sub Rule (1) which deals with separate entrance and exit doors located on the left side of the vehicle. Admittedly, the bus owned by the petitioner does not confer to the provision of Rule 164(1) of the Rules 1994. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Rule 164 of M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 :- 164. Admittedly, the bus owned by the petitioner does not confer to the provision of Rule 164(1) of the Rules 1994. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Rule 164 of M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 :- 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 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.] 164 (1) deals with specification of entrance and exit doors which are to be fitted on the left side of the vehicle having at least 53 cms. width and of sufficient height. Proviso of Rule 164(1) provides that the said proviso 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 Motor Vehicles Act. There is not exception to the vehicle registered prior to coming into force of this Rule 164(1) of Rules 1994. Proviso to Rules 164(2) appears to be a result of poor draughtsmanship. In proviso 164(2) of Rules 1994 it is mentioned that restriction imposed by Sub Rule (1a) shall not be applicable to the stage carriages registered before coming into force of the said Rules. However, there is no sub Rule (1a) of the Rule 164. 6. Proviso to Rules 164(2) appears to be a result of poor draughtsmanship. In proviso 164(2) of Rules 1994 it is mentioned that restriction imposed by Sub Rule (1a) shall not be applicable to the stage carriages registered before coming into force of the said Rules. However, there is no sub Rule (1a) of the Rule 164. 6. Furthermore, if the intention of the legislation was to exempt the stage carriages from the requirement of two separate entrance and exit doors as provided under Rule 164 (1) of Rules 1994 then the proviso should have been placed immediately after sub Rule (1) of Rule 164 of Rules 1994. 7. The petitioner is placing reliance on proviso to Rule 164(2) of Rules 1994. Thus, it can be said that the vehicle which were registered prior to coming into force of proviso 164(2) of Rules 1994 are exempted from having an emergency exit window on right side of the vehicle. The interpretation suggested by the petitioner that the vehicle registered prior to coming into force of Rule 164(1) are also exempted from the requirement of two different doors i.e. for entrance or exit on the left side of the vehicle is misconceived. Undisputedly, the vehicle owned by the petitioner does not confer to the provisions of Section 164(1) of Rules 1994. 8. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference in the orders dated 29.12.2022 and 13.2.2023 passed by the authorities. 9. The petition fails and is accordingly, hereby dismissed.