Y. Thomas v. State Transport Authority and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **TUESDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **Y. THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, BETHEL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695 014.** - **2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 003.** - **3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 003.** ## **SRI P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the holder of a regular permit on the route Palakkad-Guruvayur as Limited Stop Ordinary Service, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 decision dated 14.06.2017 issued by the 1[st] respondent State Transport Authority and Ext.P6 decision dated 27.07.2017 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to the extent it fixes the age limit for Limited Stop Ordinary Service vehicles as 10 years. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider the question of age limit for vehicles operating as Limited Stop Ordinary Services and commanding the 2[nd] respondent to consider the application for replacement submitted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P2 to substitute the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08/AY-2332 (2013 model vehicle) with KL-13/L-9279 (2004 model vehicle) so as to operate on the basis of the regular permit on the route **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -3- Palakkad-Guruvayur, which is valid till 27.06.2018, as Limited Stop Ordinary Service, dehors Ext.P5 decision of the State Transport Authority as Ext.P6 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. 2. On 13.10.2017, when this writ petition came for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and sought time for fling counter affidavit. This Court has granted an interim direction to the 3[rd] respondent to consider Ext.P2 application seeking replacement of the vehicle at the earliest and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, dehors Exts.P5 and P6. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior 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 **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -4- 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 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 **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -5- 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 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, **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -6- 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 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 **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -7- 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 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. **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -8- (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 contained in this judgment, the issuance of regular permit for conducting stage carriage operation, with stage carriages above the age limit **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -9- 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.” 6. 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 W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 shall govern the case of the petitioner, as well. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr **WP(C).No. 30901 of 2017** -10- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH CHALAN DATED 18.9.2017.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WA NO. 1466/2017 DATED 18.7.2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 21172/2016 DATED 23.11.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STA DECISION DATED 14.6.2017.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RTA DECISION DATED 27.7.2017. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH CHALAN DATED 09.2.2018.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**