Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tripathi Travels vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. NO.2023/2018
(Tripathi Travels Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
Jabalpur, dated 5/2/2018
Shri N. N. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/
State.
Shri S. K. Shukla, Advocate for Union of India. The challenge in the present petition is to sub rule (1a) of Rule 77 of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, whereby, for the grant of stage carriage permit, the condition was imposed that such permit shall not be granted on completion of specified number of years of the vehicles from the date of their manufacture. The relevant clause read as under :-
"In rule 77, after sub-rule(1), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely :-
"(1a) In order to ensure safe, secure and convenient transport services to the passengers, the permit granting authority while granting a stage carriage permit shall abide the following conditions, namely :-
(i)that no stage carriage permit shall be granted on interstate route to a vehicle which has completed 10 years from the manufacture year;
(ii)that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for ordinary route within the State to a vehicle which has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture;
(iii)that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for any route to the vehicle which has compelted 20 years from the year of manufacture;
(iv)that for long distance route of 150 km or above in a single trip, the following category of vehicles with seating capacity shown against each shall be permitted to ply :-
*** **** ***"
Such rule was amended on 28th December, 2015, whereby, sub clause (ii) was omitted; in clause (iii) the figure and word '15 years" was substituted for the figure and word "20 years" and in sub clause (iv) "more than 75 kms" was substituted for words "150 kms or above".
2. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 59 of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 (for short the Act") empowers the Central Government to fix the age limit of a motor vehicle. In exercise of the powers conferred under the said provision, Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has fixed the age of 12 years as the age of motor vehicle for the purpose of grant of National Permits. Therefore, the different age fixed for grant of stage carriage permit by the State Government is contrary to the provisions of Section 59 of the Act. It is also contended that age of a motor vehicle can be fixed only by the Central Government in exercie of powers conferred under Section 59 of the Act.
3. On the other hand, a perusal of the notification dated 24th November 2010 shows that such notification has been published in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 65, 95, 96, Section 138(2)(e) and Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The legality and validity of Rule 77(1a) has been examined by the Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as 2013(4) M.P.L.J. 439 - Shaheed Khan and others Vs. State of M.P. & Others wherein, it has been held that the power conferred by the Central Government under Section 59 is distinct than the power of grant of stage carriage permits which is granted in terms of Section 72 and 96 of the Act. Therefore, the grant of stage carriage permit which falls within the jurisdiction of the State Government in terms of Section 72 and 96 of the Act. The relevant extract from the judgment read as under :-
"37. We, therefore, have no doubt in our minds that general rule making power relating to all aspects connected with the control of transport vehicle has been conferred upon the State Government under Section 96 of the Act including the power to specify and prescribe the conditions subject to which stage carriage permits and contract carriage permits can be granted and that such conditions may relate to matters regarding long routes, seating capacity, safety security and comfort of passengers as well as conditions of the roads and traffic conditions which are all matters that are intricately related to transport vehicles and, therefore, it cannot, by any stretch of interpretation of the provisions, be held that the impugned rules are ultra vires the rule making powers conferred upon the State.
* * * *
52. We now proceed to decide the issue as to whether prescription to the age of the vehicle for the purposes of grant of stage carriage permit by the impugned rules is directly in contravention of the provisions of section 59 of the Act which confers this power exclusively on the Central Government. The fallacy in the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners becomes apparent when we read the provisions of Section 59 and 96 in their proper perspective. Section 59 is part of Chapter IV of the Act which deals with the field of registration of the motor vehicle and provides that the Central Government having regard to public safety, convenience and objections of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the "life" of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacutre, after the expirty of which the mnotor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirement of this Act and the rules made thereunder. The object and reasons for inserting section 59 of the Act as stated are to empower the Central Government to specify the "life" of a motor vehicle of any class or type beyond which the vehicle will have to be "kept off the roads" that is to say that it cannot thereafter be permitted to ply on the roads.
53. On the other hand, section 96 of the Act which is part of Chapter V of the Act deals with the field of control of transport vehicles and gives power to the State Government to frame rules for the purposes of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter V which includes the power to prescribe conditions by framing rules subject to which stage carriage permits may be granted which is also clear from a perusal of section 72(2) and 72(2)(xxiv) and it is in the exercise of this power under Section 96 that the impugned rules have been framed which do not in any manner relate to registration of vehicles nor do they provide that the vehicle shall be taken off the road for all times to come as its road "life" shall come to an end. The rule only prescribes the age of the vehicle beyond which it cannot be permitted to be used as a stage carriage by providing that no stage carriage permit can be granted to a vehicle after it has attained a particular age looking to the safety and convenience of the travelling passengers. It is, therefore, clear that while Section 59 confers power on the Central Government to prescribe the "life" of a motor vehicle beyond which the vehicle would have to be kept off the roads, as its registration under Chapter IV shall come to an end or lapse. Section 96 is limited to prescribing conditions for grant of stage carriage permits under which it has the power to prescribe a condition regarding the "age" of the vehicle beyond which it cannot be used as a stage carriage permit with a view to ensure the safety and convenience of the passengers. It goes without saying that even though no stage carriage permit may be granted to a vehicle after a particular age, in view of the impugned rules such a vehicle may and can still be continued to be used by the petitioners for all other purposes subject to any notification issued under Section 59.
54. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned rules are within the powers conferred upon the State by the Act and do not overlap or intrude into the powers conferred upon the Central Government by section 59 of the Act. We may with profit note that the High Court of Bombay in the case of Shiv Adhar Yadav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., AIR 2009 NOC 2159 (Bom.) and Chhatisgarh High Court in the case of M/s Balaji Travels Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and another, 2008(11) MPJR-CG 78 have also taken a similar view.
* * * * *
57. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned condition regarding age prescribed by the State Government by framing the impugned rules is not beyond the rule making power conferred upon the State and is also not in contravention of the provisions of Section 59 of the Act and that the State has the power to prescribe such a condition for the purpose of granting stage carriage permits and that such a condition is for the safety of the travelling passengers and the public at large, and in public interest as has been held by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the contention to the contrary of the petitioners deserves to be and is hereby rejected."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court has not considered the fixing of age limit of the Motor vehicles Rules, in terms of Rule 88 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, therefore, the judgment of this Court has not noticed a material fact, therefore, it does not lay down good law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to a Single Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court reported as AIR 2006 Calcutta 232 - Bengal Bus Syndicate and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others wherein Rule 88A inserted in West Bengal Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2005 was struck down being contrary to Section 59 of the Act.
5. The judgment of Calcutta High Court considered Rule 88A of the Rules inserted in the West Bengal Motor Vehicle (Amentment) Rules, 2005 wherein, the State Government could direct the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to impose such special condition on issue of permit for transport vehicle restricting the plying of transport vehicles beyond particular age. Whereas, in the present case, the restriction is for grant of stage carriage permit the fixation of conditions of which has been reserved for the State Government in terms of Section 72 and 96 of the Act. Therefore the Judgment in Bengal Bus Syndicate (supra) is of no help to the argument raised.
6. The argument that Rule 88 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules has not been considered by this Court in Shaheed Khan (supra) again is not tenable. Rule 88 deals with the grant of National Permit. The grant of National Permit is not the same as fixing of a "life" of motor vehicle in terms of Section 59 of the Act. It is a condition similar to the condition of grant of stage carriage permit by the State Government. Therefore, the fixing of age for grant of National Permit does not oust the jurisdiction of the State Government to grant stage carriage permit in terms of Section 72 and Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
7. Another argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Central Government has not fixed the age limit of the vehicles in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 59, therefore, the State Government could not fix the life of the Motor Vehicles in exercise of powers conferred under Section 72 and 96 of the Act. Even if the Central Government has not fixed the age of motor vehcile, the condition of stage carriage can be fixed by the State Government in exercise of Section 72 and 96 of the Act.
8. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA
Date: 2018.02.07 23:26:59 -08'00'