P. L. Johnson v. Government of Kerala & others (W.P.(C). Nos. 4098 of 2018 and 8740 of 2018)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 4098 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **P.L.JOHNSON, S/O.LONACHAN, PADAMADAN HOUSE, UDAYANAGAR, THRISSUR-05.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001.** **4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001.** ## ***ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED** ***R5. GOPINATHAN,** **GENERAL SECRETARY, BUS OPERATORS ORGANIZATION, REG.NO.CA-281/2007, S.N.BUILDINGS, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD.** ***ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/03/18 IN** **IA.NO.4466/2018.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).No. 4098 of 2018** ****ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED** ## ****R6: M.B.SATHYAN,** **PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS FEDERATION, ANANDAVALEESWARAM, KOLLAM-691 009** ****ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2/4/2018 IN IA.NO.6099/2018.** **R1 TO R4 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON ADDL.R6 BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-04-2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.8740 OF 2018, THE COURT ON 13-04-2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts 16/4/2018** ## **WP(C).No. 4098 of 2018 (J)** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-47/1625. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 10/04/2021 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY DECISION OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS DATED 29/01/2018 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/02/2018 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/01/2018 IN DEPARTMENTAL ITEM NUMBER 2 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **sts 16/4/2018** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).Nos. 4098 and 8740 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of April, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders issued by the State Transport Authorities prescribing a specific colour code for particular types of stage carriage services. The parties and documents are being referred to as in W.P(C).No.4098 of 2018 for convenience. Exhibit P5 is the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 4.1.2018 which is under challenge on the ground that it is ultra vires the powers conferred by the statute. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') provides for constitution of a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3). It is stated that Section 68(3) of the Act provides that the State Transport Authority shall exercise and discharge the following powers and functions: - _“(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State;_ 2 _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ - _(b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;_ - _(c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities;_ - _(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages; and_ - _(d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.”_ 3 _._ It is argued that Section 96 of the Act provides the power of the State Government to make rules for the purposes of the Chapter. Section 96 occurs in Chapter V of the Act which deals with the control of transport vehicles. Section 96(2)(xviii) having provided the State Government with the power to make rules in respect of the colouring and painting of motor vehicles, the State Transport Authority would have no residual power to impose a condition that certain types of motor vehicles are to be painted in particular colours and such an exercise would be possible only at the instance of the State Government by framing of rules in exercise of the powers under Section 96 of the Act. Rules which provides for seating capacity and painting _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ 3 of educational institution bus, motor cabs and goods vehicles are referred to in support of the contention that the colours of particular classes of vehicles have been specifically prescribed by the State Government in exercise of its rule making power and it is therefore clear that it is only in exercise of such power that the colour code with respect to particular classes of stage carriages can be prescribed. Referring to Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules'), it is contended that the rule only provides that paintwork or varnish of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition and in accordance with the specifications, if any laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authority and that the stipulation to maintain the paint work in a proper condition does not provide the STA with powers to specify that particular classes of vehicles shall be painted in particular colours. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners rely on the Apex Court decision in _**Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P**_ [(1980) 2 SCC 324]. A Division Bench of this Court in _**Chandramathy C.G v. State of Kerala**_ [2013(4) KHC 691] had considered the issue with reference to the prescriptions in the Act and the Rules and that the question of power of the State Transport _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ 4 Authority to issue directions of this nature which tends to impose conditions of permits even before they are granted by the Regional Transport Authority is clearly illegal and arbitrary. 5. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is contended by the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that Section 68(3) of the Act provides ample power to the STA to co-ordinate and regulate activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities as also to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities. It is stated that the decision to direct the painting of motor vehicle in specific pre-determined colours on the basis of the classification of the kinds of permits is only an exercise undertaken by the STA in public interest and in order to coordinate and regulate the activities and policies of Regional Transport Authorities in the matter of grant of specified permits. It is stated that while granting permits, the Regional Transport Authorities are clearly empowered to impose conditions that vehicles of a specified type and conforming to approved specifications shall be used and to attach further conditions to the permit. Section 72(2)(xxiv) provides that the Regional Transport Authority can impose any other conditions 5 _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ which may be prescribed. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader would rely on the decisions of this Court in _**Balakrishina Pillai v. Joint R.T.O.**_ [1995(1) KLT 685] and _**Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association v. Regional Transport Authority**_ [2014(4) KLT 709] to contend that the conditions imposed by the RTA regarding painting of vehicles in specific colours is completely legal and valid. The decision of the Division Bench in _**Balakrishna Pillai's case (supra)**_ is relied on to contend that Rule 290 of the Rules which provides that educational institution buses have to be painted in a specific colour has been upheld by this Court finding that the same could not be held to be discriminatory. In _**Kasaragod District Bus Owners**_ _**Association's case (supra)**_ this Court considered the provisions of Section 72 of the Act and Rules 191 and 264 of the Rules and found that the Regional Transport Authorities have general power to issue such stipulations with respect to stage carriages and other vehicles while granting permits and that even without a specific rule being issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 96(2) of the Act, the RTA could specify that the painting of the vehicle covered by the permit has to be in a specified fashion. _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ 6 Considering Rule 191 of the Rules which prohibits advertisement or writing on vehicles as well as Rule 264 which provides that the paint work or varnish on every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition and in accordance with the specifications laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authority, this Court held that the Regional Transport Authorities do have powers to insist that the paint work of vehicles covered by permits granted by it should be in accordance with particular specifications. 7. As a corollary, it is contended that since the Regional Transport Authorities have the power to insist on the paint work in respect of specific classes of vehicles, the State Transport Authority under Section 68(3) of the Act would definitely have the power to decide on a uniform policy with regard to such specifications by different Regional Transport Authorities throughout the State. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the decisions relied on by the Special Government Pleader are those considering the validity of Rules framed in accordance with law and the power of the STA has not been considered in those cases. However, I notice that the powers of the RTA to impose conditions to direct uniform colour to stage _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ 7 carriages has been considered by this Court in _**Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association's case (supra).**_ Repelling the contention that such specification could be introduced only by Rules framed under Section 96(2), this Court held that the RTA is empowered to impose uniform conditions for grant of permits. Further, a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P(C).No.33980 of 2015, while dealing with the issue of specification of age in respect of fresh stage carriage permits, held that the State Transport Authority being empowered to coordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities in the State, is fully empowered to formulate a policy as to maximum age of vehicles for conduct of stage carriage services. In the cases on hand, the State Transport Authority has only directed that the Regional Transport Authorities in the State should follow a uniform policy with regard to the specification of colours in respect of specific classes of vehicles. This is a decision, which, according to me, is well supported by the power under Section 68(3)(a) of the Act. The practical difficulty of an operator cannot be a ground to find any illegality in the decision taken by the State Transport Authority which is well within the jurisdiction. 8 _**WP(C).4098 & 8740/18**_ In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** _vgs_