Kabeer v Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 20105 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **KABEER, S/O.BAVA, 10/52(10/85) THOPPIL HOUSE, GCDA, MANNAM.P.O, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,**| |---|---| ||**ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.**| |**2**|**THE SECRETARY,**| ||**REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,**| ||**PIN-682030.**| |**3**|**THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695111.**| ||**BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ||**SRI. BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GP**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 WPC 20105 OF 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who made an application before the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority for regular permit on the route North Parur-Vytila Hub, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 decision of the 1[st] respondent; and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to grant the regular permit to the petitioner's stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10/AK-6070 on the route North Parur-Vytila Hub. 2. On 05.07.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader was directed to file counter affidavit/statement within ten days. 3. A statement has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3 WPC 20105 OF 2018 respondents. 5. By Ext.P7 proceedings of the 1[st] respondent dated 17.03.2018, the request made by the petitioner to issue the regular permit granted as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 17.08.2015 of the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority in respect of his stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10/AK6070 stands rejected relying on Ext.P3 decision of the 3[rd] respondent State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017. It is feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 6. The challenge made in this writ petition 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 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: 4 WPC 20105 OF 2018 “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 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, 5 WPC 20105 OF 2018 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. 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, 6 WPC 20105 OF 2018 the 4[th] 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 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 7 WPC 20105 OF 2018 under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the said right cannot be extended or stretched to 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 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 8 WPC 20105 OF 2018 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.” 7. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P7 decision dated 17.03.2018 of the 1[st] respondent and directing the 1[st] respondent Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the request made by the petitioner, taking note of the law laid down in the judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2018 in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases and the directions contained in that judgment. The directions WPC 20105 OF 2018 9 contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 and also the last paragraph of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 shall govern the case of the petitioner, as well. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd** 10 WPC 20105 OF 2018 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXT.P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST**| |---|---| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 17/08/2015.**| |**EXT.P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC**| ||**2206/2017 DATED 15/12/2016.**| |**EXT.P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 14/06/2017.**| |**EXT.P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 23/09/2017.**| |**EXT.P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 04/11/2017.**| |**EXT.P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC**| ||**36333/2017 DATED 23/02/2018.**| |**EXT.P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 17/03/2018.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE**