Disposed

Sahyog Trust through Secretary, Ms. Rama Sarode v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014PIL/149/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the State Government to decide on appointing an expert committee to recommend private bus fares and to issue a notification fixing minimum and maximum fares under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directs State Government to decide on expert committee appointment within one month and issue notification fixing min/max bus fares within six months under Motor Vehicles Act.

Sahyog Trust through Secretary, Ms. Rama Sarode Vs State… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2014)

17-pil-149-11.doc

Ladda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 149 of 2011.

¶6

Sahyog Trust through Secretary Ms Rama Sarode … Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Ministry of Transport and others … Respondents

¶8

None for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr S.N. Patil,AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶10

Mr G.S.Hegde and C.M. Lokesh i/by Mr G.S.Hegde & Asso. for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 16th July, 2014.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

None appears for the petitioner. We have heard learned AGP for the 1^st and 3^rd respondents and learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner-Trust is duly registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Various activities undertaken by the petitioner Trust have been set out in the petition.

¶14

The issue raised in this Public Interest Litigation is about the exploitation of passengers by the private bus operators. In paragraph 43 of the petition, it is stated that in the year 2005, there were about 56,000 private buses registered in the State. Some of the said buses are school buses and some are contract buses hired by different Companies. It is stated that a

¶15

large number of private travel buses are doing business in the State of carrying passengers by plying on the various roads in the State. It is stated

1 of 7

17-pil-149-11.doc

that roughly 25 lakh people travel by private travel buses everyday during pick seasons. The contention is that the fare charged by the private transport operators is not regulated. It is contended that the services offered by some of the private transport buses are very poor. The seats in the buses are in broken condition and the buses are not maintained properly. The prayer in this petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus enjoining the respondents to prevent the private transport operators from increasing their fares during holiday seasons and at weak-ends. The contention in the petition is that during holiday seasons and at week-ends, the private bus operators charge exorbitant fares. A direction is prayed for against the respondents for framing rules and regulations in respect of the private bus operators.

¶20

It will be necessary to make a reference to the detailed order dated

¶21

10^th April, 2012 passed by this Court in the present petition. The paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said order read thus :

¶22

“2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one of the grievances of the petitioner is that during the festival season and on Saturdays and Sundays, private bus operators who are plying their buses on various intercity routes in the State as also on inter State routes charge excess fare which is much more than the normal ticket fare. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by Mr.Vikas Dhanyakumar Pandkar, Regional Transport Officer, it is stated as under:

¶23

“ Under the provisions of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

2 of 7

17-pil-149-11.doc

the Government of Maharashtra is empowered to issue directions to the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority in the matter of fixation of fares in respect of contract carriages.”

¶28

The provisions of section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have also been brought to the notice of this Court. Section 67 deals with the power of the State Government to control road transport. Subsection contemplates that the State Government, having regard to the contingencies mentioned in sub clauses (a), (b), ( c) and (d), may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, issue directions both to the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority – (i) regarding the fixing of the fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages. (Remaining portions of section 67 are not relevant at this stage for the controversy in issue).

¶29

In view of the provisions of section 67 as well as the statement made in the affidavit, we want the State Government to take appropriate steps to issue appropriate notification fixing the minimum and maximum fare of contract carriages by following due procedure of law, as early as possible and, in any case, not beyond the period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.”

¶30

It appears that the direction issued under the said order was not

¶31

3 of 7

¶32

4 17-pil-149-11.doc

¶33

implemented by the State Government. B y way of a Civil Application No. 39 of 2013, the State Government sought the recall of the order dated 10^th April, 2012. The said Civil Application No.39 of 2013 was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 30^th April,2014. This Court declined to recall the said order. The only clarification issued by this Court under the said order was that the order of this Court does not direct the State Government as to the manner in which vehicles are to be categorized for the purposes of fixing the charges. It was also clarified that the said order does not restrain the State Government from fixing the different rates during different periods. This Court observed that rates will have to be fixed in accordance with law after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects.

¶34

Today, the learned AGP has placed on record the minutes of the meeting of the State Transport Authority held on 27^th May, 2014. He has also placed on record the letter dated 3^rd June,2014 addressed by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority to the State Government requesting the State Government to appoint a Committee of experts for making recommendations for fixing the rates of fare to be charged by the Private Transport Operators. It is stated in the said letter various factors such as demand, category of buses, category of services provided etc. will have to be taken into consideration. By a letter dated 18^th June,2014 the Additional Transport Commissioner has again requested to the State Government to constitute a

4 of 7

17-pil-149-11.doc

Committee.

As held by this Court under order dated 10^th April,2012, the State Government will have to exercise powers under section 67 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and in particular under clause (i) of sub-Section (1) thereof by issuing directions to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities regarding fixing of fares and rates (including maximum and minimum) for contract carriages. The directions issued by this Court under order dated 10^th April,2012 are in terms of the said clause (i) of sub Section (1) of Section 67 of the said Act. The time of six weeks was granted under the said order to comply with the said direction, if there was no other legal impediment in that regard. The said order has been clarified by further order dated 30^th April,2014. The fact that the State Transport Authority has recommended to the State Government for constitution of a Committee of experts for the purpose of implementation of the order passed by this Court shows that now there is no legal impediment in the way of fixing the rates of fare.

¶40

The State Government will have to take appropriate decision on the request made by the State Transport Authority of appointing a Committee of the experts. It is pointed out in the letters addressed by the State Transport Authority that for fixing the fares of taxi and / or auto rickshaw, an one man committee was constituted.

¶41

5 of 7

¶42

6 17-pil-149-11.doc

¶43

Under the above circumstances, there is no reason to keep the petition pending and the same will have to be disposed of in terms of directions issued by this Court under the order dated 10^th April,2012, as modified by order dated 30^th April,2014. However, longer time will have to be granted to the State Government to make compliance as the State Transport Authority is of the view that before rates are fixed, a committee of experts will have to be appointed for making recommendations.

¶44

Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing following order:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(A) We direct the State Government to take an appropriate decision on the recommendations made by the State Transport Authority vide the letters dated 3^rd June, 2014 and 18^th June,2014 for appointing a committee of experts. The appropriate decision shall be taken by the State Government within a period of one month from today;

¶47

(B) We direct the State Government to implement the directions contained in the order dated 10^th April,2012, as clarified by order dated 30^th April,2014 in Civil Application No. 39 of 2013, by issuing a notification in terms of clause (i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 67 of the

6 of 7

17-pil-149-11.doc

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;

¶52

(C) We direct that the compliance shall be made by the State Government within a period of six months from today by issuing a notification as contemplated in subsection (i) of Section (1) of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Official Gazette;

¶53

(D) The petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶54

(A.S.CHANDURKAR, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

¶55

7 of 7

Sahyog Trust through Secretary, Ms. Rama Sarode v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahyog Trust through Secretary, Ms. Rama Sarode v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Transport and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane Vs the State of Maharashtra -through Secretary Education Department and Ors.

Shri. Machchindra Appaso Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane Vs the State of Maharashtra -through Secretary Education Department and Ors.

Shri. Machchindra Appaso Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Pratap Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nathu Dadu Gahin Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gajanan Vithalrao Boche Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ameet Bhaskar Satam Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Sanjay Vishwanath Paramane Vs the State of Maharashtra -through Secretary Education Department and Ors.

Akhil Bharat Sadhu Sangam Trust and Anr. Vs Pandarpur Nagar Parishad, Pandarpur and Ors.

Gramsabha of Village Battis Shirala, through Sarpanch Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry for Forest and Environment and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammedali Abdul Rehman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Hemant Balaji Patil Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Ors.

M/S. Shield Protection Gurads Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Principal Secretary and Ors.