Dismissed

Private Bus Operators Association v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC20 Jul 2016WP(C)/9803/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Regional Transport Authority's order re-fixing bus fare stages. The court held that altering stages falls under RMV Rules Rule 211, distinct from fare fixation under Section 67, and that alternative remedies exist.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the statutory tribunals under Section 90 of the Act.

Private Bus Operators Association Vs the Regional… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2016/29TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9803 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION PERINTHALMANNA UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. MOHAMMED ALI HAJI

¶8

2. KUNHIMUHAMMED KUNHIPPA

¶9

PAKEEZA MANZIL, KARAKUNNU, MANJERI

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, -676 505

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505

¶15

3. P.K. SAYID

¶16

PRESIDENT, KARINKALLATHANI POURA SAMITHI, THAZHEKKODE, PERINTHALMANNA-679 322

¶17

4. A.P. ADBUL HAMEED

¶18

PRESIDENT, SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF INDIA, THAZHEKKODE-679 322

¶19

5. C.MUHAMMED

¶20

CHAIRMAN, KARINKALLATHANI BUS PASSENGERS ASSOCIATION, THAZHEKKODE PO, PERINTHALMANNA-679 322

¶21

*ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED

¶22

*AADL .R6

¶23

RADHAKRISHNAN.K., S/O. APPUNNI GUPTHAN, KOTHANKUZHI VEEDU, ALIPARAMBA P.O., PETINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM

¶24

**(ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.10771/2016 DATED 15.07.2016)*

¶25

R1&2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA R3 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RADDL.6 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SABARI

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON 20-07-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No. 9803 of 2016 (A)

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE FARE STAGE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY WITH EFFECT FROM 1/6/76

¶31

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT AND STAGES ISSUED ON THE ROUTE KAMBRA-MANJERI DT. 26/12/85

¶32

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE STAGES FROM PERINTHALMANNA TOWARDS AALIPARAMBU, KAMBRA, VETTATHUR

¶33

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PREVAILING FARE NOTIFICATION DT. 19/5/14

¶34

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 23/7/15

¶35

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 21/5/15

¶36

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶37

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 6/1/16

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶44

----------------------------------------

¶45

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2016

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

This writ petition is filed by petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent

¶48

whereby the fare stages on the route PerinthalmannaKarinkallathani; Karinkallathani Vettathur;

¶49

Karinkallathani - Aalipparambu and KarinkallathaniKambram was re-fixed, and for other related reliefs.

¶50

Material facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶51

First petitioner is a private bus operators association,

¶52

which is a unit of Kerala Private Bus Operator's Federation. Second petitioner is an existing operator of stage carriage on the route Muriyankannikadavu-Manjeri

¶53

via Perinthalmanna and Kambra - Manjeri via Perinthalmanna. According to petitioners, the route Manjeri-Aaliparambu via Perinthalmanna and

¶54

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶55

¶56

Karinkallathani as well as Kambra-Manjeri via Karinkallathani and Perinthalmanna as well as allied routes from Perinthalmanna to different destinations are in existence for the past so many years. In all these routes, after taking into consideration the distance, importance of localities and the average distance, fare stages have been fixed by the Regional Transport Authority and same is in existence and is followed from time to time.

¶57

It is further contended that, the fare stages are fixed by the authorities taking into consideration the average distance as 2.5 Kms and the important places and localities.

¶58

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

¶59

section (1) Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government issued notifications from time to time fixing the fare to be collected in respect of stage carriages in the State. It is urged that, in all these

¶60

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶61

¶62

notifications it is also specifically mentioned that “in respect of route where fare stages have already been fixed, such fare stages shall be retained without change.”

¶63

It appears that respondents 3 to 5 filed representation seeking abolition of fare stages in respect of services operating between PerinthalmannaAaliparambu and Perinthalmanna-Vettathur, Perinthalmanna-Kambra. Petitioners filed objection pointing out that the same cannot be entertained by the

¶64

first respondent in the light of Ext.P4 notification also.

¶65

According to petitioners, ignoring all these aspects, first respondent taking the portion from Karinkallathani towards the destination, had abolished stages from 4 to 3 in theses three routes and thereby, in respect of 3 stages the existing stages are altered. The fare stages which are in existence from 1976 and 1985 is arbitrarily and illegally taken away by the first respondent without jurisdiction. It is in this background, this writ

¶66

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶67

¶68

petition is filed.

¶69

First respondent has filed a counter affidavit

¶70

denying the allegations, statements, claims and demands made by petitioners. It is also contended that, petitioners have other alternative efficacious remedy by way of revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles

¶71

Act, if they are aggrieved by Ext.P8 order. It is also contended that, Ext.P8 order is passed by the first respondent as he is the authority to rectify the anomalies in the fixation of fare stages under Rule 211 of the KMV Rules, if there is a dispute. First respondent has received complaints from respondents 3,4 and 5 alleging that there is anomaly in the fixation of fare stages on the route

¶72

(1) Perinthalmanna-karingallathani

¶73

(2) Kringallathani-Vettathur

¶74

(3) Karingallathani-Aalipparambu

¶75

(4) Karinkallathani-Kambram.

¶76

¶77

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶78

It is also contended that, in Malappuram

¶79

District, public had to pay more fare and therefore requested to refix the fare stage on the above sectors.

¶80

It is thereupon that, an enquiry was conducted through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Perinthalmanna, who has furnished his report with detailed sketch, evident from Ext. R1(a). Pursuant to the same, matter was placed before the meeting of the first respondent held on 4.2.2015 and Ext.P6 decision was taken, directing the Secretary, RTA to conduct a detailed enquiry on the aforesaid matters and publish the new proposed fare stages calling objections from all affected parties and settle the objections in accordance with law and place the specific report on the necessity of re-fixing the fare stage in the next meeting of the first respondent and the decision on the application was adjourned accordingly. In terms of the said order, Secretary, RTA conducted investigation after publication of notice in the Notice

¶81

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶82

¶83

Board, two representations were received. (i) from the Malappuram District Private Bus Operators association in which it opined that no changes are required in the existing fare stages and also produced a copy of G.O.(P) No.38/2014/Tran. dated 19.5.2014 and (ii) from Karinkallathani Bus Passengers Association also contending that they have no objections with respect to route Karinkallathani-Perinthalmanna. According to their opinion, the stages on the route have to be reduced to four and no other changes required. They also submitted that, KSRTC is operating with the fare stages suggested by them.

¶84

Pursuant to the enquiry, the matter was again placed before the first respondent on 6.1.2016 and first respondent took Ext.P8 decision and the fare stages was re-fixed as stated in the said impugned order. Therefore, it is contended that it was after conducting a detailed enquiry by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ext.P8 order was

¶85

¶86

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶87

passed by the first respondent and also after considering the objections filed by the respective objectors.

¶88

It is also submitted that, Rule 211 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the 'KMV Rules') deals with the fixation of fare stages for stage carriages. It is categorically stated in the said Rule that, the Regional Transport Authority shall after such enquiry as it may deem desirable, fix fare stages on all routes. In this case, an enquiry was already conducted and it was felt by the Regional Transport Authority that re-fixation of fare stage is necessary to curb the grievance of the public. First respondent upheld the grievances of the public and re-fixed the fare stages as stated above. That apart it is contended, Rule suggests that maximum distance of each stage shall not exceed 6.5 Kms. From the fare stages it is seen that presently most of the stages are fixed within a distance of 1.1 to 2 Kms, which is clear anomaly and ordinary common people are

¶89

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶90

¶91

exploited.

¶92

Therefore, according to the first respondent, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in taking a decision contained under Ext.P8. It is also contended that, petitioners themselves have agreed that usually fare stages are fixed with a minimum distance of 2.5 Kms from the table displayed in Ext.P8 order and therefore, it is clear that presently stages are fixed within 1.1 to 2 Kms, which is against the interest and welfare of the common people and entire aspects were considered by the Motor Vehicle Inspector while preparing the report.

¶93

That apart it is also urged that, in Ext.P4 notification, the distance between two stages is not a criteria for fixation of stages, and it is stated in Ext.P4 notification in respect of routes where fare stages have already been fixed, such fare stages shall be retained without change and therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that, respondents are not entitled to re-fix/

¶94

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶95

¶96

shift the existing fare stages in respect of a route which is already fixed is not correct. The present stages are fixed to safeguard the rights of the public and to rectify the anomaly in the fare stages fixed earlier.

¶97

It is also contended that by virtue of the law laid down by this Court in Malappuram District Private Bus Operators Association v. M.P. Mohan and Others [1999(2) KLT 898], wherein it was held that, there cannot be any obstacle on the part of the RTA's who can be directed to rectify the anomalies in the fixation of fare stages under Rule 211 if there is a dispute. That apart it is also contended that, the subject issue raised in this writ petition are entangled with several fact situation for which the remedy available to petitioners is revision provided under Section 90 of the Act. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition has no legal sustenance and therefore the same is to be dismissed.

¶98

¶99

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶100

Petitioners have filed a reply reiterating the

¶101

stand adopted in the writ petition and also disputing the contentions put forth by the first respondent in the counter affidavit.

¶102

Respondents 3,5 and 6 have jointly filed a counter affidavit an similar lines with the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and has supported Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent.

¶103

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader and Learned counsel for respondents 3,5 and 6.

¶104

The learned counsel for petitioners has adopted the contention put forth in the writ petition. The main contention advanced by learned counsel is that, as per Section 67 of the Act, the State Government alone has the power to direct to fix the fare stages and invited my attention to Section 67(1)(d) (i) which read thus:-

¶105

“regarding the fixing of fares and freights (including the

¶106

¶107

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶108

maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages;

¶109

Therefore, according to the counsel, the Government alone is vested with powers to alter fare stages and therefore, Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent in modification of the existing fare stages is totally illegal and arbitrary. According to learned counsel, no power is vested with the first respondent to issue the impugned order without a gazette notification issued by the Government as provided under Section 67 of the Act, empowering first respondent to do so.

¶110

Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Clause (f) of Ext.P4 G.O.dated 19.5.2014 purportedly issued under Section 67 of the Act. Clause (f) of Ext.P4 read thus:-

¶111

“F. Fixation of fares

¶112

In respect of routes where fare stages have already been fixed, such fare stages shall be retained without changes. However, for the purpose of calculation the distance between

¶113

¶114

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶115

two stages will be taken generally as 2.5 kilometres for Ordinary/ Mofussil/ City/ City Fast Passenger/Town Services., since the fare stages are generally fixed not only on the consideration of distance, but also taking into consideration factors like importance of places and convenience of passengers.”

¶116

Therefore, relying on the said clause it is the contention of the learned counsel that, the fare stages fixed by the Government shall be retained as such without any changes. If at all any change is to be made, the same can be done by issuing a further gazette notification. Therefore, according to the counsel, the action of the first respondent is in violation not only of Section 67 of the Act but also Clause (f) of Ext.P4 notification specified (supra).

¶117

Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Rules 211 of the KMV Rules, wherein fixation of fare

¶118

stages for stage carriages is provided which read thus:-

¶119

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶120

¶121

“211. Fixation of fare stages for stage carriages :- In the case of stage carriages the State or Regional Transport Authority shall after such enquiry as it may deem desirable, fix fare stages on all routes. The maximum distance of each such stage shall not ordinarily exceed six kilometres and five hundred metres. When stages so are fixed, fare shall be collected according to stages:

¶122

Provided that this rule shall not apply to vehicles of State Transport Undertaking.

¶123

Explanation:- When a passenger gets into or gets down from a stage carriage at a place lying in between two stages, fare shall be collected from him from the stage preceding the place from where he gets into the bus to the stage succeeding the place where he gets down.”

¶124

Relying on the said Rule it is the contention of the counsel that, the State or Regional Transport Authority shall after such enquiry as it may deem desirable to fix fare stages on all routes which shall not ordinarily exceed six kilometres and five hundred metres from stage to stage and when stages are so fixed, fare shall be collected according to the stages. Therefore, it

¶125

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶126

¶127

is the contention of the counsel that, on a harmonious reading of Section 67 of the Act and Rule 211 of KMV Rules it is evident that without a notification published in the gazette the fare stages cannot be altered.

¶128

Learned counsel has also contended that, Ext.P7 objection was raised by the first petitioner, but, the same was not considered, evident from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Ext.P5 and contended that, the fare revision was done in that case as per a notification dated 9.11.2012, wherein the fares were revised retaining the existing fare stages as such.

¶129

The question raised by the learned counsel for petitioners is, whether the first respondent is vested with powers to remove the stage without a notification as provided under Section 67 of the Act. According to counsel, the stages are fixed by RTA under Rule 211,whereas fares were fixed by Government by invoking

¶130

¶131

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶132

the power under Section 67 by issuing notification. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to Rule 212 of the KMV Rules and pointed out that, there the State Transport Authority as well as the Regional Transport Authorities are vested with powers to fix the schedule of timings by issuing a general order other than those belonging to State Transport Undertakings running on specified routes or by special order prescribed a schedule of timings for each stage carriage other than belonging to the State Transport Undertaking and the same shall not be considered as variation of permit issued under subsection (3) of Section 80 of the Act. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Section 72 of the Act where the power is conferred on a Regional Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse grant such a permit. Therefore, drawing analogy to Section 72 of the Act and Rule 212 of the KMV Rules

¶133

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶134

¶135

learned counsel contended that, unlike the powers conferred thereunder the power conferred under Rule 211 can only be exercised as per the stipulations contained under Section 67 of the Act. Therefore, it is the contention of the counsel that, Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent without any notification published by the State Government in the gazette, cannot be sustained under law.

¶136

That apart it is also submitted by the learned counsel that, Ext.P8 order is a review made by the first respondent suo motu reviewing the fare stages for which there is no power conferred under the Act or Rules enabling the first respondent to do so. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to a judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sebastian [1995 (1) KLT 421] and specifically to paragraphs 4, 4A and 5 and canvassed the proposition that if provisions are made in the notification issued under Section 67 of the 1988 Act for

¶137

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶138

¶139

different varieties of stage carriages, different rates of fare can be fixed by the Government. Paragraphs 4A and 5 of the said judgment reads thus:-

¶140

“4A. For coming to the conclusion that the impugned notification issued under S.67 of the 1988 Act is only administrative in character and not having the character of subordinate legislation, learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala v. S.T.A. Tribunal, AIR 1964 SC 1573. In that case, Their Lordships were concerned with an order issued under S.43A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. hereinafter referred to as “the 1939 Act”. S.43A allowed the State Government to issue orders and directions of a general character in respect of any matter relating to road transport to the Slate Transport Authority’ or a Regional Transport Authority. Such a direction, as per the Section, is binding on those authorities and they are to give effect to the same. Clause (2) of that Section further stated that the State Government may direct the Slate Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority to open any new route or to extend an existing route or to permit additional stage carriages to be put or to reduce the number

¶141

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶142

¶143

of stage carriages on any specified route. An order of the State Government in relation to the above aspects was held to have the effect of interfering with the quasi-judicial function of the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities. Further, the directions or orders issued under S.43-A were not required to be published. Nor were they required to be communicated to the parties, whose claims were affected thereby.Orders issued by the Government under S.43A interfered with matters which were, as per the Act, to be dealt with by the above-mentioned authorities in a quasi-judicial manner. Under the provisions of the Act, the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities were to grant permits or refuse the same on an evaluation of the entire circumstances in exercise of their powers quasi-judicially. Any attempt to interfere with the said jurisdiction of these authorities was frowned upon by the Supreme Court. So, the orders issued by Government in exercise of the purported jurisdiction under S.43-A was held to be not binding on the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities. Their Lordships held:-

¶144

“When applications are made for permits under the relevant provisions of the Act and they are considered on the merits,

¶145

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶146

¶147

particularly in the light of evaluation of the claim of the respective parties, the transport authorities are exercising quasi-judicial powers and are discharging those functions as quasi-judicial Tribunals which are subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226,....... so that when we examine the question about the validity of the impugned order, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the impugned order is concerned with matters which fall to be determined by the appropriate transport authorities in exercise of their quasijudicial powers and in discharge of their quasi-judicial functions”.

¶148

The law slated by the Supreme Court cannot have any application to the facts of the case before us. S. 43A of the 1939 Act has nothing in common with the provisions contained in S.67 of the 1988 Act. S. 67 allows the Government to issue directions to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities by notification in the official gazette regarding the fixing of fares for stage carriages, having regard to the advantages offered to the public. The notification issued in exercise of this power cannot be termed as purely administrative in character. Such a notification issued under this Section can certainly partake the character of subordinate legislation.

¶149

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶150

¶151

Section 67 comes under Chapter V of the 1988 Act, which deals with control of transport vehicles. S. 96 of the Act, which comes under the same Chapter, empowers the Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions contained in the chapter. So, the notification issued by Government under S. 67 of the 1988 Act fixing the fares of stage carriages having regard to the advantages offered to the public is certainly not an administrative order, it is a subordinate legislation binding on quasi-judicial authorities like the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities. The contrary view taken by the learned Single Judge, we are afraid, cannot be supported.”

¶152

Learned counsel has also specifically invited my attention to paragraph 11 of the judgment of this Court in Malappuram District Private Bus Operators Association v. M.P. Mohan and Others (1999 KHC 443) which reads thus:-

¶153

“11. We are of the opinion that there cannot be any

¶154

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶155

¶156

obstacle on the part of RTAs who can be directed to rectify the anomalies in the fixation of fare stages under Rule 211 if there is a dispute. We do so. The two notifications above referred to will not stand in the way.”

¶157

By relying on the propositions laid down by two Division Benches of this Court it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, it is only on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 67 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authorities will be vested with powers to alter the fare stages.

¶158

Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended that Section 67 of the Act deals with fixing of fare and the said provision has nothing to do with fixing of fare stages. That apart it is also contended that, what is gatherable from Rule 211 of the KMV Rules is that, the Regional Transport Authorities after such enquiry as it may deem desirable can fix fare stages on all routes and when the fair stages are so fixed by the RTAs the fare

¶159

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶160

¶161

shall be collected in accordance with the stages.

¶162

Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that , when fare stages are fixed by the first respondent, the fair is to be collected according to the stages as per the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 67 of the Act. That the fixing of fare stages and fixing of fares are two different actions provided under law. So far as fixing of fare is concerned, there should be notification published in the official gazette issuing directions to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority, which requirement is not necessitated while fixing the fare stages under Rule 211.

¶163

The judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sebastian (supra) was dealing with the nature of power conferred under Section 67 of the Act and therefore, the same will not in any manner enure to the benefit of the petitioners. So far as the judgment in

¶164

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶165

¶166

Malappuram District Private Bus Operators (supra) is concerned, the issue with respect to Rule 211 of the KMV Rules was considered, but, the same did not deal with the issues raised in this writ petition as to whether a notification under Section 67 is required for re-fixing the fare stages. Therefore, I do not think that the said judgment is also an authoritative pronouncement with respect to the issue raised by the petitioners.

¶167

Learned counsel has also invited my attention to judgment of this Court in Udyogamandal C.P. Council v. State of Kerala [1991(2) KLT 470] and canvassed the proposition that, fixing fare stages for stage carriages is an administrative function and not a quasy judicial function and therefore, there is an equally efficacious remedy available to petitioners to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 90 of the Act. My attention was drawn specifically to paragraph 7 and 11 of the said

¶168

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶169

¶170

judgment and contended that, relying on judgment of this Court in Karthikeyan v. R T A, Trichur 1965 KLT 1186) and judgment of the Apex Court in B. Rajagopala

¶171

Naidu v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,Madras (AIR 1964 SC 1573) held that fixing fare stages is an administrative function and not a quasy judicial junction and therefore, there are no legal circumstances enabling this Court to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶172

Learned counsel appearing for party respondent has invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in

¶173

Basil Attippetty @ Basil AG. v. State of Kerala & Others [2013(3) KLJ 64 wherein it was held that, the Regional Transport Authority has the power to fix the fare stages under Rule 211 of the KMV Rules. So also, the judgment of a learned Single Judge in K.Ali v. The Regional Transport Authority dated 5.2.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 6840/2012 wherein also a similar stand was

¶174

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶175

¶176

adopted by this Court and further held that when there is alternative remedy available, the aggrieved party has to resort to such remedies in such matters.

¶177

After evaluating the fact situations referred above and reckoning the legal circumstances pointed out by the respective counsel, I am of the considered opinion that, the issue can be resolved by providing a proper meaning to Section 67 of the Act and Rule 211 of the KMV Rules also taking into account the law laid down by this Court in various judgments referred (supra). In my view, Section 67 of the Act deals only with fixing of fares and rates for which a direction by the State Government to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority is mandated. On a reading of Section 67 it can never be gathered that the same deals with fixing of fare stages. Fixing of fare stages is dealt with only under Rule 211 of the KMV Rules, wherein the State or Regional Transport Authority is vested with powers. Merely

¶178

¶179

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶180

because it is stipulated under Section 211 that, the fare shall be collected according to the stages fixed thereunder will not evolve the meaning that for re-fixing the fare stage and for fixing the fares the notification published in the gazette as contemplated under Section 67 is required.

¶181

Therefore, upshot of the above discussion is that, fixing of fare stages by the Regional Transport Authority has nothing to do with the fixing of fares. When fares are fixed as provided under Section 67, the same is binding on the first respondent, who fixes the fare stages. This is all that is meant under Rule 211 of the KMV Rules. In that view of the matter I am of the considered opinion that, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent altering the stages on the ground for want of necessary directions as provided under Section 67 of the Act is illegal and bad cannot be

¶182

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶183

¶184

sustained under law.

¶185

Even though, contentions raised with respect to the illegality of re-fixing the fare stages, in view of the authoritative legal pronouncement with respect to the provisions of Section 90 of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioners are left with an equally efficacious remedy under the Act. That apart, the revision of fare stages was done by the first respondent by traversing through very many fact situations based on report submitted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the objections and representations submitted by certain interested parties and therefore, I do not think that it is proper to entertain such aspects by this Court.

¶186

That apart with respect to Ext.P7 objection filed by petitioners, learned Government Pleader has contended that no such objection was received, by which it can be seen that the factual circumstances with respect to the said objection is disputed by the first respondent.

¶187

W.P.(C). No. 9803 of 2016

¶188

¶189

Therefore, taking into account such aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioner has not made out any circumstances legal or factual enabling this Court to exercise the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶190

Sequel to the above discussion is that, the writ petition is dismissed, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to invoke the statutory provision under law with respect to Ext.P8 impugned order passed by the first respondent untramelled by any observations with respect to fixing of fare stages.

¶191

Sd/-

¶192

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶193

dlk/16/7/

Private Bus Operators Association v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Private Bus Operators Association v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanavas Vs Riyas Mon P.T.

Sivaprabha and Another Vs Joint Registrar, Pathanamthitta and Anot

Tom C.Varghese Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

K.P.Govindan Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Mohanan Pillai Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies (General), Kollam

P P Kannan Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Coir Marketing Federation Ltd.