Surya Sankaranarayanan v. Government of Kerala and others

## **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.38966 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **SURYA SANKARANARAYANAN AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.SANKARANARAYANAN, IRIKKALLIL HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 565.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 039.**| |**2**|**THE STATE TRASPORT AUTHORITY (KERALA)**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 039.**| |**3**|**THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER**| ||**TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**PIN - 695 039.**| |**4**|**THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY**| ||**PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| ## **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.38966 of 2017 2 ## **JUDGMENT** **Petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator on the route Chemmanampathy-Ayyanthole as limited stop ordinary service covered by Ext.P1 regular permit, in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL-8/X-4050, which is a 2003 model vehicle, registered on 05.05.2003, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari on Ext.P5 decision dated 14.06.2017 on the 2[nd] respondent State Transport Authority and quash the same in so far as it fixes the life span of limited stop ordinary service. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration on Ext.P5 in so far as it fixes the life span of the services operated as limited stop ordinary services as 10 years is only in respect of stage carriages which were operating as super class services on routes in excess of 140 kms. as clarified by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment dated 23.11.2016 in WP(C) No.21172** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 3 **of 2016; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 4[th] respondent to consider Ext.P3 application for replacement untrammelled by Ext.P5 and grant the replacement as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit to be specified by this Court.** **2. On 05.12.2017, when this petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and sought time to file Counter Affidavit. On 12.12.2017, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and sought time to file Counter Affidavit.** **3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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.38966 of 2017 4 **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** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 5 **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, 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** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 6 **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, 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.** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 7 **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** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 8 **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 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** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 9 **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 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** WP(C). No.38966 of 2017 10 ## **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 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.38966 of 2017 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 06.11.2017 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF KL-8/AF 606. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 09-06-2017.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 09-06-2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/06/2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31-05-2016. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18-11-2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20-08-2015. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 21172/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 23-11-2016.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**