The Court disposed of the writ petition by holding that it is governed by the directions issued in the judgment of W.P.(C) No.24680 of 2017 dated 15.10.2018, which set aside the State Transport Authority's decision regarding the age limit of stage carriages.
Null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 17TH POUSHA, 1940
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
PETITIONERS:
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
2
13 VINEESH T.S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, THANIKKAL HOUSE, PONGANAMKAD, KURICHIKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680028.
BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.JINU ANTONY SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
BY
SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
3
JUDGMENT
Petitioners, who are stage carriage operators on various routes between Palakkad and Thrissur, have file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to Ext.P27 decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 and to quash the same in so far as it fixes the life span of limited stop ordinary services to ten years. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Ext.P27, in so far as it fixes the life span of the services operated as limited stop ordinary services as 10 years only in respect of stage carriages is illegal; and also a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 to 7 to consider the applications for renewal of regular permit or for re-issue of temporary permit
for the vehicles mentioned in Exts.P1 to P26 untrammeled by Ext.P27 decision of the 2nd respondent and to grant the renewal of permit or re-issue of temporary permit to the respective
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
4
petitioners to operate on the respective routes in which they are operating.
2. On 19.01.2018, when this petition came up
for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and sought time to file counter affidavit. This Court granted a direction to the 5th respondent to issue temporary permit with a duration of two months, untramelled by Ext.P27. The said interim order was followed by interim order dated 21.08.2018 in I.A. No.1 of 2018 and interim order dated 12.09.2018 in I.A. Nos.5 & 7 of 2018.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The challenge made against the decision of
the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it relates to fixation of age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh stage carriage permits was the issue raised in
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
5
W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases. By judgment dated 15.10.2018, those writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 and the said authority is directed to reconsider the matter. Paragraphs 17 to 25 and the last paragraph of the said judgment read thus:
“17. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.24680/2017) fixing age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh regular stage carriage permits cannot be sustained in law, as the same is one issued in fragrant violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no reasons whatsoever have been stated in the said decision, in support of fixation of age limits for stage carriages.
18. In Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 324) , the Apex Court in the context of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act are geared to public safety and not private profit and casts
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
6
a solemn duty upon the authorities to protect Indian lives moving in buses, walking on roads, or even standing on margins. This aspect is exemplified on a bare perusal of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, which makes it luminously clear that the Act has been enacted not for granting benefit to stage carriage operators or facilitate or guarantee profit and benefits to transport operators, but the object of regulating the entire field of motor vehicles, transport, traffic, road safety, compensation to victims of motor accidents, security, comfort and protection of passengers, public safety, prevention of pollution, protection of road conditions, regulation and control of transport vehicles including provision for grant of permits, preventing unhealthy competitions between the transporters amongst several other issues relating to motor vehicle and transports. It is therefore clear from a perusal of the provisions of the Act that the extent of the right to operate stage carriages under the Act is subservient and subject to the right, amongst others, to safe and secure transport of the travelling passengers and the right to pollution free environment and good road conditions of the public at large. [Paragraph 77: Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P.
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
7
and others (2013 (4) MPLJ 439)] .
19. In K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and anr. [(2011) 15 SCC 288] , the Apex Court, in the context of Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the expression 'specified description' is very wide and, therefore, the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act are perfectly justified in placing restrictions for grant of the permit in public interest, which would include fixing the age of the vehicle also.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24680/2017 would contend that when the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2016 in W.P.(C) No.33980/2015 and connected cases, while ordering reconsideration of the matter by the State Transport Authority, was only for fixation of maximum age of the vehicle to be used for conducting ordinary stage carriage services in the State, the 4th respondent State Transport Authority was not justified in fixing different age limits for ordinary stage carriages, city/town stage carriages and limited stop ordinary services, etc.
21. As held by the Apex Court in K.M.Ismeth Ummer's case (supra), the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act have the authority in
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
8
placing restrictions for the grant of permit, in public interest, including fixation of the age of the vehicle. Therefore, any decision taken by the State Transport Authority in fixing different age limits for different types of stage carriage is legally permissible.
22. In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [(1997)8 SCC 770) , a Three Bench Judge of the Apex Court held that the existing provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 alone are sufficient to clothe the members of the Police force and the transport authorities with ample powers to control and regulate the traffic in appropriate manner, so that no vehicle being used in a public place, causes any danger to the public in any form. The requirement of maintaining the motor vehicle in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner, which does not endanger the public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act.
23. Though the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who are stage carriage operators, have a fundamental right to trade and commerce, guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India, the said right cannot be extended or stretched to
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018 9
encompass a fundamental right to operate stage carriages unfettered by any conditions or restrictions in total disregard to the security, safety and convenience of the passengers and the public at large. Their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is inferior and subordinate and has to give way to the paramount consideration of the public safety, security and convenience of the passengers and other relevant considerations under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder.
24. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.24680/2017), and the said Authority is directed to reconsider the matter, with notice to the affected parties, including the stage carriage operators in the State, and take an appropriate decision regarding fixation of the age limits for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh regular stage carriage permits, taking note of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.
25. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
10
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed, status quo as on this date in respect of the permits/temporary permits, if any, issued to the petitioners shall be continued, if found necessary by issuing temporary permit of two months' duration to operate the service. Based on the orders passed by the State Transport Authority, the respective Regional Transport Authorities shall pass revised orders on the application preferred by the petitioners for grant of regular permit, if situation warrants.
It is also ordered that till a fresh decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, based on the direction contained in this judgment, the issuance of regular permit for conducting stage carriage operation, with stage carriages above the age limit specified in the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017, shall be deferred by all the Regional Transport Authorities in the State.”
5. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases dated
15.10.2018, this writ petition is disposed of in
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
11
terms of the directions contained therein. The directions contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 and also the last paragraph of the judgment in WP(C) No.24680 of 2017 shall govern the case of the
petitioner, as well.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE
sp/07/01/19
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-49-4757. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P1 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 26-03- 2018. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-09U-1015. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P3 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 24-06-2018. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-09T-1919. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P5 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 28-02-2018. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-08 AM- 4422. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P7 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 22-01-2018. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-08 AP-3535. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THRISSUR RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P9. |
| EXHIBIT P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-08 AN- 1008. |
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
13
| EXHIBIT P12 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERM PALAKKAD RELATING TO IN EXHIBIT P11 WHICH 29-07-2020. |
IT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IS VALID UPTO |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P13 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGI OF BUS BEARING REGIST 5373. |
STRATION CERTIFICATE RATION NO.KL-08 AN- |
| EXHIBIT P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERM PALAKKAD RELATING TO IN EXHIBIT P13 WHICH 22-01-2018. |
IT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IS VALID UPTO |
| EXHIBIT P15 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGI OF BUS BEARING REGIST 8222. |
STRATION CERTIFICATE RATION NO.KL-08 AN- |
| EXHIBIT P16 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERM PALAKKAD RELATING TO IN EXHIBIT P15 WHICH 18-09-2018. |
IT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IS VALID UPTO |
| EXHIBIT P17 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGI OF BUS BEARING REGIST |
STRATION CERTIFICATE RATION NO.KL-08Y-3553. |
| EXHIBIT P18 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERM PALAKKAD RELATING TO IN EXHIBIT P17 WHICH 18-01-2018. |
IT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IS VALID UPTO |
| EXHIBIT P19 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGI OF BUS BEARING REGIST |
STRATION CERTIFICATE RATION NO.KL-49-3744. |
| EXHIBIT P20 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERM PALAKKAD RELATING TO IN EXHIBIT P19 WHICH 29-06-2019. |
IT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IS VALID UPTO |
| EXHIBIT P21 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGI OF BUS BEARING REGIST |
STRATION CERTIFICATE RATION NO.KL-09Q-8888. |
| EXHIBIT P22 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERM PALAKKAD RELATING TO IN EXHIBIT P21 WHICH 25-09-2018. |
IT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IS VALID UPTO |
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
14
| EXHIBIT P23 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-49-6500. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P24 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P23 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 19-01-2018. |
| EXHIBIT P25 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-13N-7. |
| EXHIBIT P26 | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, PALAKKAD RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P25 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 27-03-2018. |
| EXHIBIT P27 | TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.2 IN MEETING HELD ON 14-06-2017. |
| EXHIBIT P28 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT LIMITING THE STAGE CARRIAGE BUSES IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT TO 10 YEARS. |
| EXHIBIT P29 | TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TAKEN IN DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.1 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18-11-2015. |
| EXHIBIT P30 | TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.45/2015 DATED 20-08-2015. |
| EXHIBIT P31 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP(C)NO.21172/2016 DATED 23-11-2016. |
| EXHIBIT P32 | TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP(C)NO.41586/2017 DATED 21-12-2017. |
| *EXHIBIT P36 | TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF FOUR MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE PERINGOTTUKURISSI- PALAKKAD-THRISSUR AS LSOS FOR BUS NO.KL- 09U-1015 ALONG WITH A RECEIPT FOR RS.350/- DATED 08.08.2018 BEING THE FEES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMIT. |
***[PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A. NO.1/2018]**
WP(C). No.2096 of 2018
15
***EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA PALLAKAD MADE IN ITEM NO.135 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28.12.2017 PERMITTING RENEWAL OF PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL-49-4757. EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA PALAKKAD MADE IN ITEM NO.29 ON THE MEETING HELD ON 29.05.2018 PERMITTING RENEWAL OF REGULAR PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL-09U-1015. EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA PALAKKAD MADE IN ITEM NO.120 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28.12.2017 PERMITTING RENEWAL OF PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL-09T-1919.
***[PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A. NO.3/2018]**
*EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF FOUR MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE PALAKKAD-THRISSUR AS LSOS FOR BUS NO.KL-O9Q-8888 FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMIT.
***[PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A. NO.5/2018]**
**EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 29.08.2018 MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR REISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMIT TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE MALAMPUZHA-GURUVAYOOR. EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 30.08.2018 MADE BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR REISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMIT TO OPERATE ON THE ROUTE THRISSUR-GOPALAPURAM.
***[PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A. NO.7/2018]** RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petition should be disposed of in terms of directions contained in the judgment of W.P.(C) No.24680 of 2017 dated 15.10.2018.
Whether the State Transport Authority's decision fixing age limits for stage carriages is sustainable after being set aside in W.P.(C) No.24680 of 2017.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P.Referred¶52
Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 324) · Who else cites this
Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P.Referred¶55
Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others (2013 (4) MPLJ 439)
K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport AuthorityApplied¶59
K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and anr. [(2011) 15 SCC 288] · Who else cites this
M.C.Mehta v. Union of IndiaApplied¶65
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [(1997)8 SCC 770) · Who else cites this
W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017Followed¶75
W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017
A.Veluswamy
Government of Kerala
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
