KERALA STATE LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these batch of Writ Petitions Private Stage Carriage Operators challenge the definition given to "Fast Passenger Service", "Luxury Service", "Super Deluxe Service", "Super Express Service" and "Super Fast Service" in the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred as 'K.M.V Rules, 2013') and the Notification issued by the Government of Kerala, Transport (B) Department as per G.O.(P) No. 73/2013 (Tran) dated 16.7.2013, by which the Government approved a Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'Scheme') under sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act'). The objectionable amendment with reference to the definition of "Fast Passenger Service" is extracted hereunder:

(2.) The objectionable provisions of the Scheme are paragraphs one, three, five and six which read as under:

(3.) According to the petitioners the definition given to 'Fast Passenger Service' and other higher class of vehicles by way of amendment, is clearly arbitrary and illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. It is their common contention that by virtue of notification G.O.(P) No. 4/99 (Tran) dated 1.2.1999, the Government amended the Motor Vehicles Rules as per S.R.O. No. 118 of 1999 by which definition of 'Fast Passenger Service' was incorporated giving a meaning as the service which is operated by a fleet owner with limited stops on a route having a distance of not less than 70 kms. and not more than 160 kms. 'Fleet Owner' was further defined as meaning a person or institution who or which is the registered owner of not less than 50 stage carriages kept for use in the State. A Division Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 9603 of 1999 formed an opinion that the definition of 'Fleet owner' clearly excludes every other operator other than Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and therefore the said provision is arbitrary and illegal, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. However it is further observed that the Government can initiate a fresh proposal and issue notification following the procedure as contained in the statute to give a reasonable definition to the word "Fleet Owner" so that it shall not militate against Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is the contention of the petitioners that the present amendment has been incorporated to the Rules conferring the very same privilege of operation to the STU which is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the amendment is ultra vires S. 212 read with S. 96 of the M.V. Act. S. 96(1) empowers the Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter V. S. 212 is the procedure to exercise the rule making power. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme-Court in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 443 in order to contend that the statement and objects and reasons of the M.V. Act is to liberalise the private sector operations in the field of transportation. Therefore when a rule is framed under S. 96 of the Act, it can only be for the purpose of giving effect to the purposes mentioned in Chapter V and not for giving any undue advantage to STU's. It is contended that the very intention of K.M.V Rules, 2013 is to exclude private operators from carrying out Fast Passenger Service and other higher class of services, and as a consequence the present operators who are operating such services will be forced to convert their operation to ordinary service.