RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE principal grievance made in this Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, moved in public interest, is that the nature of traffic in the State of Kerala has deteriorated over the years and has now reached alarming proportions on account of the frequent accidents which continue unabated. In the companion petition, O. P. No. 1265 of 2001, Ext. P2, gives the statistics of traffic accidents taken from the website of the City traffic Police. THE figures indicate that traffic accidents, including accidents resulting in grievous injuries and deaths, are on the rise. One of the principal cause of the accidents, according to the petitioner, is that stage carriage buses are driven at reckless speed without observing any norms as to the speed limits. Due to the policy of liberalisation adopted in the matter of granting stage carriage permits, the situation has become critical and needs to be controlled immediately.

(2.) THE Original Petition gives statistical data in Para. 1 to 3 with regard to the number of accidents occurring on the roads and the rise in the number of fatal accidents. THE petitioner has also quoted the report of the Principal Research Officer of National Transportation, Planning and research Centre (NATPAC) which supports the contention urged. Against the background of these facts, the petitioner urges that action ought to have been taken by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the Motor vehicles Act to remedy the situation. Since the State has singularly failed to do so, it is necessary for this court to direct the State to take necessary and remedial measures by a writ of mandamus.

(3.) THOUGH a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, no reason is adduced as to why the wholesome practice of attaching a condition in the permit for installation of electronic speed regulator device was given up. One possible reason could be that after the coming into force of the 1988 Act, perhaps, the provision of R. 118 might have led to this erroneous impression. R. 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with "speed Governor". Under sub-r. (1) of this Rule the Central government is empowered to issue a notification prescribing the type of governor that shall be fitted by the operators of different transport vehicles. In our view, R. 118 has not made any change in the position in law which was noticed by this court in Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators' association's case (supra ). Today, under the new Act of 1989, we have S. 72 of sub-s. (2), Cl. (xxii) which is identically worded with the earlier s. 48 (3) (xxi ). The power that was read into S. 48 (3) (xxi) is, therefore, very much readable into present S. 72 (2) (xxii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even under the Act of 1988 S. 112 empowers the State Government or any other authority to deal with the limits of speed of motor vehicles. Such speed limits have been notified by S. O. No. 425 (E) dated June 9,1989. Cl. (1) (d) of the table prescribes the maximum speed per hour in Kilometres in respect of medium or heavy passenger motor vehicles. The problem which was faced by the Regional transport Authority in the year 1986, when this court decided in Ernakulam district Private Bus Operators' Association's case (supra), persists even today. But, its dimensions have increased manifold. In the circumstances, we see no reason as to why the Regional Transport Authority cannot insist on such a condition even today as part of the stage carriage permit issued by it in exercise of its powers under S. 72 (2) (xxii ). The Regional Transport Authority can and should attach such a condition to all existing permits also by varying the conditions and attaching such a condition to all fresh permits to be issued by it. In our view, it is imperative that the Regional Transport Authority takes such action to ensure that the spurt in the number of fatal and other motor accidents is effectively curbed.