Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As per the approved scheme, the maximum number of vehicles proposed to be operated on each route by the State Transport Undertaking to the exclusion or partial and other persons is 870 and the maximum number of mini buses (Private) permitted to be operated is 250.

8. In the case on hand, the Regional Transport Authority, second respondent had rejected the request of the third respondent on the ground that if the Government had formed an opinion under Section 99(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to provide reserve mini buses for private operators, it would have certainly provided such number of reserve mini buses under Clause (6) above, for mini bus operators and in the absence of specification of such reserve mini buses for private operators in the corresponding column in Clause (6) of the Scheme, the third respondent, mini bus operator is not entitled to grant any permit for reserve mini bus. The Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, has further observed that Rule 172(7) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules does not envisage grant of mini bus permit similar to the ratio prescribed for stage carriage operators of both private and State Transport Undertakings and since the mini buses from a separate category, the provision of Rule 172(7) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, cannot be applied to the case on hand. The second respondent has further observed that even as per the modified draft scheme publised in G.O.Ms. No. 1054, Home (Tr. III) Dept, dated 11.11.2002, there is no mention of those 250 mini buses in column No. 4 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to reserve mini bus.

12. In a recent decision in R. Shanmugaiah v. P.S. Lakshmanakumar and 2 Ors. reported in 2007 Writ L.R. 832, a Division Bench of this Court examined the proposition whether the mini bus permit granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act can be held to be a stage carriage permit. At Paragraphs 16.9, 16.10 and 18, this Court held as follows:

16.9. A conjoint reading of the above referred to statutory provisions and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the purpose of fixing stages for a stage carriage service has been stated, leads us to hold that a mini bus is nothing but a stage carriage service. In other words, a mini bus satisfies the definition of a 'stage carriage' as defined under Section 2(40) of the Act, apart from the fact that Rule 3(o) of the Rules specifically means a mini bus as a stage carriage. As between a regular stage carriage and a mini bus, the only difference is that in respect of a mini bus the maximum number of passengers permissible has been determined as 25, while the minimum is six which is common both for a regular as well as a mini bus. It cannot be disputed that a mini bus operation being a stage carriage has to necessarily operate its vehicle in the route permitted for it in between the various stages determined. Therefore, all the parameters which are prescribed in respect of a regular bus while operating in a permitted route such as the prescription of fares, the starting point and the destination, minimum prescribed number of passenger permissible, the prescribed number of maximum numbers of passengers passengers permissible, the number of stages fixed in between the permitted route are all common and applicable to a mini bus as well. The statutory definition contained in Rule 3(o) of the Rules, defining a 'mini bus' to mean a stage carriage, further strengthens the position that a mini bus operation can only be considered as a stage carriage service and cannot be distinguished from a stage carriage operated with a vehicle of larger passenger capacity when it comes to the question of whether such services is a stage carriage service; or can it be called as any other service under the provisions of the Act. To put it differently, a mini bus operation though by virtue of the definition contained in Rule 3(o) of the Rules has got a restricted number of passengers to be carried at a maximum level, as far its operation in a route is concerned, it is nothing but a stage carriage service.

18. The contention made on behalf of the first respondent that a mini bus service cannot be equated to an operation of a regular bus is not appealing to us for more than one reason. In the first place, the operation of a stage carriage service, as held by us, is not dependent upon the nature of vehicle operated in the service. The stage carriage service having been defined in categoric terms under the provisions of the Act and the only difference as between a regular bus and a mini bus operating in a stage carriage service is only the capacity of the passengers to be carried in the vehicle, in our opinion, a distinction sought to be made in respect of a stage carriage service operated by a mini bus and a regular bus would directly conflict with the statutory provision, namely the definition clause of a stage carriage under Section 2(40) of the Act, as well as, a mini bus which has been defined to mean as a 'stage carriage' as defined under Rule 3(o) of the Rules.

16. The object of the scheme is to provide conveyance to the rural public and the mini bus operators are permitted to ply their vehicles for a distance of 16 kms in an unserved sector and 4km in served sector, in all 20 kms. If the mini bus which is operated in an unserved sector for a distance of 16 kms is stopped due to breakdown, the rural public would be left with no other conveyance and in such a situation, spare vehicle is necessary to provide the rural traveling public to reach their destination without any delay. If the intention behind providing spare bus to State Transport Undertakings is to maintain service for the commuters and to provide for special occasion, and the number of buses intended for such purpose is 1/10th on the total number of buses calculated on the total fleet strength operating on the area, it is not just and reasonable to expect that the mini bus operators should not provide the similar service to the rural public. To deny a mini bus operator to have a spare bus to provide continuity of service to the rural public in an unserved sector would amount to denying the rural public of their legitimate right to utilize the services provided by mini buses and it would be amounting to discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Keeping in mind, the legislative intent and the benevolent scheme, the provisions of Section 104 of the Act has to be read and interpreted to give the most beneficial interpretation and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the grant of spare mini bus permit does not amount to traveling beyond the scheme nor it is inconsistent with the provisions in Chapter VI of the Act. In view of the above, the objection raised by the petitioner are untenable.