Skip to content


Vishamber Dass Vs. S.T.A.T. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 588/1982
Judge
Reported in1982WLN450
AppellantVishamber Dass
RespondentS.T.A.T. and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredHazarimal v. Regional Transport Authority
Excerpt:
.....public;it is in the interest of public and for the benefit of the travelling public that the transport authority should prescribe the models keeping in view the conditions of the road, and other relevant factors and if the bus operators want to ply the vehicle, they must strictly comply with them. in any case the jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution, which is of extra-ordinary nature cannot be used to put premium on the effort of the bus operator not to ply the vehicles of prescribed models to the detriment of the travelling public.;(b) rajasthan motor vehicles rules, 1951 - rule 84a--validity of--sta empowered to prescribe model and issue directions to keep vehicles in good condition--held, it is not in contravention of any provision of motor vehicles act or..........that a condition cannot be imposed. he has relied upon the judgment of hazarimal v. regional transport authority, jaipur (1) 1956 rlw 359 and masi ullah v. state appellate tribunal u.p. and anr. (2) : air1967all128 . in addition to the above, he has argued that rule 84-a is ultra vires.5. i have given a very thoughtful consideration to the submissions of mr. sharma learned counsel for the petitioner. the petitioner wants to ply the bus on non-temporary stage carriage permit and insists that in the year 1982, he must be allowed to ply the vehicle of 1961 model because he has obtained a fitness certificate 1 have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of mr. sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and i find that there is no force in that. firstly, the bus operators.....
Judgment:

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. Bus plying for providing essential social service to travelling public of a social welfare State or for mere profiteering of the Bus owner is the debate

2. A bus operator's insistence to use two decade old obsolete model of Bus, with serious traffic, health hazard and with imminent danger to human lives by accidents and breakdown, is the main theme of this avoidable litigation. The S.T.A.T.'s decision to use prescribed model is in 'fumes and fire' in this writ petition.

3. The short point involved in this case is whether the condition imposed by the S.T.A.T. in appeal for replacing the vehicle of prescribed model requires interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is having a vehicle of 1961 model. The renewal was refused by the R.T.A. but in appeal, it has been granted upto 11-12-1984. Four months' time was allowed to the petitioner for this purpose.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that a condition cannot be imposed. He has relied upon the judgment of Hazarimal v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (1) 1956 RLW 359 and Masi Ullah v. State Appellate Tribunal U.P. and Anr. (2) : AIR1967All128 . In addition to the above, he has argued that Rule 84-A is ultra vires.

5. I have given a very thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner wants to ply the Bus on non-temporary stage carriage permit and insists that in the year 1982, he must be allowed to ply the vehicle of 1961 model because he has obtained a fitness certificate 1 have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner and I find that there is no force in that. Firstly, the bus operators are permitted to ply the buses under the Motor Vehicles Act after obtaining permit for the benefit of the travelling public. In order to ensure that buses of good condition are used in order to ensure comfort to the travelling public and to avoid possibility of accidents, the Transport Authorities prescribed the models keeping in view the classification of the route. In view of this a permit holder cannot insist that he would ply the vehicle of an old model against the prescribed model and without complying the condition of prescribed model obtain renewal.

6. I am of the opinion that it is in the interest of public and for the benefit of the travelling public that the Transport Authority should prescribe the models keeping in view the conditions of the road, and other relevant factors and if the bus operators want to play the vehicle, they must strictly comply with them. In any case the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is of extra-ordinary nature cannot be used to put premium on the effort of the bus operator not to ply the vehicles of prescribed models to the deteriment of the travelling public.

7. The decision of Hazarimal v. Regional Transport Authority (1) has got no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case the controversy was about special direction for use of a vehicle of particular year and not of the prescribed model. The Allahabad case referred to above is equally distinguishable because it also relates to specification for a particular year.

8. Mr. Sharma's contention that Rule 84A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 being invalid is equally untenable. These rules have been framed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act by virtue of the powers given under Section 21 ,,41, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 86,90 and 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as would be evident from the notification dated 30th March, 1951 published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Part 4C, Extra-ordinary. In these rules the State Transport Authority has been em-powered to issue general or special directions for imposing the condition either at the time of grant or renewal of the permit for the purpose of prescribing the model conditions. In my opinion the State Transport Authority, which is the apex authority has been rightly empowered to prescribe the model conditions and for that purpose to issue general or specific directions so that vehicles of good conditions, and model are permitted for the benefit of the travelling public,

9 I find no invalidity in the above provision because neither it is in contravention of any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act nor it is against: any provisions of the Constitution.

10. Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that the R.T.A. did not apply its mind as it rejected' the renewal application and thereafter, in appeal the same was granted. In my view, assuming the above-to be true, no infirmity has been created because the powers of the Appellate Authority in this respect at least are co-extensive and all that has been said is, that it must be of a prescribed model,

11. The result of the above discussion is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //