High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-01-28Disposed of with directions to reconsider age l...

Venugopalan v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 915 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
bench_type:Single Judge
Judgment Date: 2019-01-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of with directions: STA to reconsider the age limits in light of MV Act and previous judgments; pending such decision, timings on the petitioner's route should be placed in the next timing conference with notice to affected parties; consequential orders to be issued after the age decision, within a month; status quo to be maintained until fresh orders.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to reconsider age limits and settle timings subject to STA decision; pending the decision, timings to be discussed in next conference; status quo maintained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Venugopalan

Respondents

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur-680003

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• I. Dinesh Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• K. P. Harish

Case Synopsis & Summary

Venugopalan, who holds a regular permit issued on the route Kundoor–Mala–Kodungallur–Vellankallur–Madathumpady–Marekkad–Annamanada, petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus to settle timings for the regular permit on KL-56/5258, in line with Ext. P1, subject to the State Transport Authority’s age-of-vehicle decision as directed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.24680 of 2017 and connected matters. The challenge concerns the STA’s 14.06.2017 order fixing age limits for stage carriages; the High Court, relying on earlier decisions (Subhash Chandra, KM Ismeth Ummer, MC Mehta), held that such decisions must be reasoned and in public interest, not arbitrary or in violation of natural justice. The court set aside the 2017 order, directing reconsideration with notice to affected parties, and instructed STA to decide the age limits in light of MV Act and rules. It also emphasized that public safety overrides a proprietor’s right to operate stage carriages under Article 19(1)(g). Pending the STA decision, the court directs that timings on the petitioner’s route be considered in the next timing conference, with consequential orders issued only after the age decision and within a defined timeframe. A status quo on existing permits is to be maintained.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaMotor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Article 19(1)(g) of the ConstitutionMotor Vehicles Act, 1939

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of natural justice
Public safety/public interest over private profit
Regulation of transport to ensure road safety, passenger security and environmental considerations
Right to trade and commerce under Article 19(1)(g) is subordinate to public safety

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Venugopalan contends that Ext. P1 permits timing should be settled for the regular permit on KL-56/5258, subject to the State Transport Authority’s decision on vehicle age; reliance on the Court’s earlier direction in W.P.(C).No.24680/2017 and connected cases; argues that age restrictions can be revisited as per the MV Act and order; seeks expeditious action and continuation of status quo/temporary permits if necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent (RTA) argues pending the STA’s decision on vehicle age, timing settlement should be considered in the next timing conference; requests time to obtain instructions; emphasizes public safety and the need for the STA to determine age restrictions under MV Act; seeks to allow temporary arrangements.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P.	(1980) 2 SCC 324	Positive	Used to illustrate that MV Act aims at public safety over private profit.
K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and anr.	(2011) 15 SCC 288	Positive	Affirms authority to fix age of vehicle under MV Act within public interest.
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India	(1997) 8 SCC 770	Positive	Supports safety and regulatory framework under MV Act.
Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others	(2013 (4) MPLJ 439	Positive	Cited to underline public safety and regulatory aims.
W.P.(C).No. 24680/2017 and connected cases	W.P.(C).No.24680/2017	Positive	Judgment directing reconsideration of age limits and not sustaining the 2017 fixation.
W.P.(C).No.33980/2015 and connected cases	W.P.(C).No.33980/2015	Positive	Judgment referenced for reconsideration of matters related to vehicle age limits.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Venugopalan v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER :** **VENUGOPALAN, AGED 57 YEARS SANTHINIVAS, PALLISSERY, THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENT :** **THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680003.** **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who has been granted regular permit on the route Kundoor-Mala-Kodungallur-VellankallurMadathumpady-Marekkad-Annamanada vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 15.10.2018 of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to settle the timings as relating to the grant of regular permit on the said route as per Ext.P1 in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-56/5258, which is a 2006 model vehicle, subject to the decision of the State Transport Authority as relating to the age of vehicle, as directed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. On 11.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **3** 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 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 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 **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **4** 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, 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. 915 of 2019** **5** 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 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 **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **6** 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 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 **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **7** 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 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 **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **8** 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. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that pending decision by the State Transport Authority regarding the age of the vehicle, the respondent shall place the matter relating to settlement of timings in respect of the regular permit granted to the petitioner, vide Ext.P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, in the next timing conference of the respondent with notice to the petitioner and other enroute operators and thereafter, proceedings shall be issued, after a decision is taken by the State Transport Authority regarding the age of vehicle. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to place the request made by the petitioner for settlement of timings **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **9** in relation to the regular permit granted to the petitioner vide Ext.P1 on the route Kundoor-Mala-KodungallurVellankallur-Madathumpady-Marekkad-Annamanada in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL56/5258 in its next timing conference and take an appropriate decision with notice to the petitioner and other enroute operators, however subject to the decision of the State Transport Authority relating to the age of vehicle pursuant to the direction contained in the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases. Consequential proceedings shall be issued to the petitioner only after the decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of such decision. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE** AV/30/1 **WP(C).No. 915 of 2019** **10** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.10.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE STA DATED 14.6.2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL-56 5258**