T.J. DAMODARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTITUTIONAL validity of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 6 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Conditions for Vehicles Engaged in Transport of School Children) Rules, 2012 (for short, 'the Rules') has been questioned in this writ petition. The material facts are that the Parliament enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) (for short, 'the Act'). S. 96 of the Act empowers the State Governments to make Rules for the purpose of Chapter -V. Government of Karnataka in exercise of the power conferred by clause (xxxiii) of S. 96(2) read with S. 212 of the Act made the Rules under a Notification No. SARIE 01 SAEPA 2011, dated 18.01.2013 (Annexure -D). The Rules have come into force on 01.05.2013. 'School Cab' as per Rule 2(1)(c), means, a contract carriage with seating capacity not exceeding 12+1 complying with the requirements with valid permit issued under S. 74 of the Act. The Rules stipulate that no Owner or Operator of a Motor Vehicle shall permit the use of the vehicle as a Transport Vehicle for carriage of School Children unless he carries a valid contract carriage permit issued under S. 74 of the Act, permitting the use of the vehicle for the said purpose. Rule 6 is with regard to the conditions to be observed by the Owner or Operator of the Motor Vehicle. Sub -Rule (2) of Rule 6 stipulates that the age of the vehicle shall not be more than fifteen (15) years from the date of its initial registration, as on the date of entry to transport School Children.

(2.) THE petitioner - T.J. Damodar, is the owner of a Maxi Cab bearing registration No. KA -05 -B -5067, which is of 1992 model, with seating capacity of 12+1, covered with permit No. Maxi/2301/2000, issued on 18.02.2000 and renewed on 18.12.2010, valid upto 17.12.2015. The petitioner used the said vehicle for carrying the school children of Bishop Cotton School, Bangalore. He is aggrieved by the age of the vehicle fixed as per Sub -Rule (2) of the Rule 6, at fifteen (15) years, from the date of its registration.

(3.) SRI S.P. Shankar, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner inter alia contended that;