ORIGINAL JURBDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 1124,4908, 9069-70,18-21, 4817,9445-48 of 1981, 1336, 2117-20, 6808 and 7219 of 1982, 2928 of 1980,1698/80 and 663 of 1981.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
S. Markandey, Mrs. C. Markandey, U.S. Prasad, R.K Jain, R.B. Mehrotra, Ravi Prakash Gupta and K.K Gupta for the Petitioners.
Kapil Sibal and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In these writ petitions, the vires of condition No. 18 attached to the permits issued by the respective Regional Transport Authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh :o the petitioners for plying contract carriages known as ’mini’ buses is in question. ’Mini bus’ is defined by sec. 2 (d) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 as meaning "an omnibus which is constructed or adapted to carry not more than 35 persons excluding the driver". Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the Regional Transport Authority granting a contract carriage permit to attach in the permit any one or more of the conditions enumerated in that provision. Item (x) of Section 51 (2) reads "any other condition which may be prescribed". Condition No. 18 is a condition which is prescribed and attached in every permit for plying a mini bus. The condition in its original form stood thus: "The motor vehicle covered by the permit shall not be more than four years old counted from the date of registration to any time during the validity of the permit." The period of four years originally stipulated was increased to "seven" on September 28, 1978 and again raised to "nine" on December 21, 1981. The vires of the condition was questioned earlier by some owners of mini buses on the ground that it was ultra vires the power under sec. 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, in Subhash Chandra And ors v. State of U.P. and ors.(1) this Court held that the condition was within the limits of the power conferred by sec. 51 (2) tracing its source to Item (X) of sec. 51 (2). The Court observed:
Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 is geared to public safety, not private
profit and casts a solemn duty not to be deterred
by any pressure except the pressure of social
justice to Indian lives moving in buses, walking
on roads or even standing on margins ..........
"Section 51 (2) (x) authorises the impost of
any condition, of course, having a nexus with the
statutory
purpose. It is undeniable that human safety is one
such purpose. The State’s neglect in this area of
policing public transport is deplorable but when
it does act by prescribing a condition the court
cannot be persuaded into little legalism and
harmful negativism. The short question is whether
the prescription that the bus shall be at a seven-
year old model one is relevant to the condition of
the vehicle and its passengers’ comparative safety
and comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it
is. The older the model the less the chances of
the latest safety measures being built into the
vehicle. Every new model incorporates new devices
to reduce danger and promote comfort Every new
model assures its age to be young, fresh and
strong, less likely to suffer sudden failures and
breakages, less susceptible to wear and tear and
moral fatigue leading to unexpected collapse. When
we buy a car or any other machine why do we look
for the latest model ? Vintage vehicles are good
for centenarian display of curios and cannot but
be mobile menaces on our notoriously neglected
highways. We have no hesitation to hold, from the
point of view of the human rights of road users,
that the condition regarding the model of the
permitted bus is within jurisdiction and not to
prescribe such safety clauses is abdication of
statutory duty".
"We are clear that a later model is a better
safeguard and, more relevantly to the point, the
year of the make and the particulars of the model
are part of the description". An agrument appears to have been advanced that sec. 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act obliged every transport vehicle, which expression included contract carriages like mini buses, to carry a certificate of fitness and therefore, Condition No. 18 was superfluous and derogated from the requirement of sec. 38. This argument was not accepted by the court, who observed.
"The unreported ruling in Civil Writ No. 7317
of 1975 interprets s. 38 of the Act and the non-
issuance of
the fitness certificate because the model was not
recent enough. May be the vehicle, regardless of
the year of its make, may be fit and the refusal
to certify fitness merely because it is old may
not always be right. But we see no conflict
between a vehicle being fit to ride and the condi-
tion, as an additional requirement and safety
factor, in the shape of the year of the model.
This is an extra measure, a further insurance
against machine failure and cannot contradict the
’fitness’ provision".
The vires of Condition No. 18 is once again challenged in these writ petitions. The grounds of challenge, however, are most insubstantial. It was said that there was no such condition in the case of omnibuses and therefore, there was an infringement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is incorrect to say that there is no such condition in the case of omnibuses. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed in a Writ Petition Nos. 18-21 of 1981, it is stated that in the case of omnibuses, there is a condition that the vehicle should be replaced on the expiry of five years from the date of registration. Further omnibuses and mini buses constitute different classes and are not comparable. Another submission was that condition No. 18 is impossible of fulfillment since one of the manufacturers of chassis of mini buses (Telco) is no longer manufacturing such chassis. This is denied in the counter-affidavit and we presume there are other manufacturers in the country, who make or produce the required chassis. In any case, that is a situation which can be remedied by the transport authorities. The petitioners can always pursue the remedies given to them under the Motor Vehicles Act by way of appeal and revision. We fail to see any infringement of any constitutional right. Another submission was that the authority competent to impose the condition, was not the Regional Transport Authority, but the competent authority under sec 4 of the Utter Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act. Vie have already referred to Subhash Chander’s case where it has been held that the source of a power for imposing condition No 18 is sec. 51 (2) (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under sec. 51 (2) (x), the authority empowered to impose the condition is the Regional Transport Authority. Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act deals with the authorisation of use of private mini buses as stage carriages within specified limits covered by an approved scheme and has nothing whatever to do with the imposition of conditions on mini buses playing as contract carriages. It was suggested that the real object of Condition No. 13 is not the safety of the passengers as thought in Subhash Chander’s case, but to eliminate mini buses from the field. There is no basis at all for this submission. As we said, there is no substance in any one of these submissions advanced by the petitioners. All the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs. P.B.R. Petitions dismissed.