The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Regional Transport Authority order removing a bus fare stage. The court distinguished the State Government's power to fix fares from the R.T.A.'s statutory power to fix fare stages under Rule 211, holding the removal legal and the appeal failed.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.501 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23658/2015 DATED 10-01-2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):
ATTUPARAMBATH HOUSE, VALAPPAD .P.O., NATTIKA.
ITTITHARAYIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.(C):
SR.GP SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R1 AND R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-2-
'CR'
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2020.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J
Appellants, the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 23658 of 2015, are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding Ext.P9 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam held on 26.05.2015, whereby the authority has decided to remove the existing fare stage of such carriages at Manjummel Kavala by invoking the power conferred under Rule 211 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('Rules, 1989' for short), on public interest.
Appellants are conducting stage carriage operation on the route Ernakulam-Guruvayur. The distance of the route is 86 kms and 34 fare stages have been fixed in the above route with an average of 2.5 kms evident from Ext.P5 list of approved fare
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-3-
and fare stages in respect of stage carriage vehicles on the route in question for Limited Stop Ordinary Services on and with effect from 11.11.2012. Stage No. 27 is SNDP (Varappuzha), stage No.28 is Manjummal Kavala and stage No.29 is Thaikavu. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, while considering the representation of the third respondent, decided to remove the fare stage “Manjummel Kavala”, which according to the appellants, was in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Thereupon, the appellants, inter alia contending that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5482 of 2014 and as per Ext.P8 judgment the order impugned namely Ext.P7 was quashed and directed the Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the matter afresh, after providing notice of hearing to all interested parties. It was accordingly that the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P9 order was passed after hearing all parties concerned. The learned single Judge,
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-4-
after appreciating the contentions raised by the appellants, the Government as well as the passengers, who were respondents 3 and 4, and relying upon various judgments rendered by this Court, has arrived at a conclusion that the stand adopted by the Regional Transport Authority is in accordance with law and the appellants have not made out any case justifying interference exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-5-
the State Government dated 19.05.2014 under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act, 1988' for short) specifically delineates the manner of fixation of fares as per clause (f) of the said notification and it has been specifically described that the distance between 2 stages will be taken generally as 2.5 kms. It is further submitted that fare stages are generally fixed not only on consideration of the distance, but also taking into consideration the factors like importance of place, convenience of passengers etc. That apart, it is contended that since Ext.P6 notification was issued by the Government by invoking the powers conferred under Section 67 of Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority is not vested with the powers to change, modify or alter the stages already fixed. It is also submitted that the said notification is a subordinate legislation having the effect of rules itself binding on the quasi judicial authorities like State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the Regional Transport Authority is illegal and
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-6-
arbitrary and the authority did not have power to pass any such orders. It is also submitted that the term “fixing of fares” employed in Section 67 of Act, 1988 includes the manner in which the fare is to be fixed and collected and it is perfectly within the power of the State Government to control or restrict the existence or otherwise of the fare stage which is also a part of fixing of fares. Therefore, the restriction imposed in the notification to continue the existing stages and not to alter the same, holds the field. Further on routes where there is already fixation of fare stages, the interference made by the Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P9 order modifying Ext.P6 notification issued by the State Government is totally arbitrary and illegal and the learned single Judge ought to have taken into account the said aspect and allowed the writ petition.
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-7-
Authority has realised the mistake and has removed the existing
fare stage at Manjummel Kavala by invoking the powers conferred under Rule 211 of Rules, 1989. It is also submitted that Section 67 of Act, 1988 only deals with the fixing of fares and so far as the fixing of fare stages are concerned, the power is absolutely vested with the Regional Transport Authorities by virtue of the Rule 211 of Rules, 1989.
67 of Act, 1988, which deals with the power of the State Government to control road traffic, and it reads thus:
“67. Power to State Government to control road transport.—
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-8-
may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, issue directions both to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority—
(i) regarding the fixing of fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages:
1[xxxx]
(ii) regarding the prohibition or restriction, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions, of the conveying of long distance goods traffic generally, or of specified classes of goods by goods carriages;
(iii) regarding any other matter which may appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for giving effect to any agreement entered into with the Central Government or any other State Government or the Government of any other country relating to the regulation of motor transport generally, and in particular to its coordination with other means of transport and the conveying of long distance goods traffic:
Provided that no such notification in respect of the matters referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) shall be issued unless a draft of the proposed directions is published in the Official Gazette specifying therein a date being not less than one month after such publication, on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration and any objection or suggestion which may be received has, in consultation with the State Transport Authority, been considered after giving the representatives of the interests affected an opportunity of being heard.
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-9-
(2) Any direction under sub-section (1) regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages may provide that such fares or freights shall be inclusive of the tax payable by the passengers or the consignors of the goods, as the case may be, to the operators of the stage carriages, contract carriages or goods carriages under any law for the time being in force relating to tax on passengers and goods.”
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-10-
the case may be, to the operators of the stage carriages, contract carriages or goods carriages under any law for the time being in force relating to tax on passengers and goods.
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-11-
carriages, reads thus:
"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 are so fixed, fare shall be collected according to stages:
Provided that this rule shall not apply to vehicles of State Transport Undertaking.”
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-12-
enjoyed by the State Government as per Section 67, and the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 211 are different domains and viewed so, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority interferes with the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 67 of Act, 1988 has no legal basis and justification. In fact, this issue was considered by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 9803 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016 and held that the power enjoyed by the State Government fixing fare and the Regional Transport Authority fixing fare stages are two different exercise, and when the Regional Transport Authority fix the fare stages, it cannot be said that it is overlooking the powers of the State Government under Section 67 of Act, 1988. The learned single Judge has taken note of the said decision while rendering the impugned judgment and has arrived at the conclusion that Ext.P9 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was in accordance with law. Moreover, the Regional Transport Authority has
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-13-
passed Ext.P9 order taking into account various pros and cons, and assigning reasons, which are primarily dependent on intrinsic factual circumstances also.
“3. The first question that has to be dealt with in these appeals is regarding the nature and effect of a notification issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under S.67 of the 1988 Act. Section 67 inter-alia authorises the State Government to issue directions by notification in the Official Gazette to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities regarding the fixing of fares and freights of stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages. This power has to be exercised having regard to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of motor transport, the desirability of co-ordinating road and rail transport, the desirability of preventing the deterioration of the road system and thedesirability of preventing the uneconomic competition among holders of permits. This means that any notification issued
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-14-
under S.67 must have regard to the advantages offered to the public. In other words, while fixing fares and freights for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages, the Government must have regard to the advantages offered to the public. Putting it differently, any notification regarding the fixing of fares and freights of stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages, provision can also be made for extending additional comforts and benefits to the public. It, therefore, follows that while fixing fares for stage carriages of different types, Government can certainly insist on the permit holders to offer more amenities and comforts to the travailing public.
W.A. No. 501 OF 2018
-15-
Transport Authority is not vested with any powers to alter fare stages, especially due to the fact that on the basis of the writ petition filed by the appellants, jurisdiction was conferred on the said authority by this Court and the said judgment has become conclusive and final also. Accordingly, we do not think that the appellants have made out a case so as to interfere with the findings rendered by the learned single Judge.
Needless to say, appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Regional Transport Authority had the jurisdiction to remove a fare stage in the Ernakulam-Guruvayur route invoking Rule 211 despite a State Government notification under Section 67.
Whether the removal of a stage by the Regional Transport Authority was arbitrary and violative of natural justice principles when reconsidered after a prior writ petition.
Whether the appeal against the single judge judgment warranting interference should be allowed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. SebastianExplained¶90
State of Kerala v. Sebastian [1995(1) KLT 421]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.M.NOUSHAD
AJITHKUMAR
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
M.A.MOHANAN
NISHAD SOBANA
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
