T J JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the validity of R. 251 of the kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961. Counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions, however, confined the attack to a portion of the rule. That portion reads as follows: "in relation to the number of persons that may be carried in a public service vehicle and the fares chargeable for carrying them in the vehicle (c) a student of any recognised educational institution travelling in stage carriages for the purpose of attending class shall be reckoned as one-half; Provided that such students shall be entitled to the concession only for travels to and from for attending classes and only if they show an identity card issued by the head of the institution in the following form (form omitted) Provided further that the concession shall be given in the form of monthly season tickets at half the daily fares. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule 'recognised educational institution' includes: (1) Industrial training centres in the public and private sectors recognised by Government; (2) Colleges, High Schools, Primary Schools and Special schools and Training Schools under the control of the Education Department; (3) Other recognised institutions under the control of the Education Department; (4) Colleges under the control of the University; and (5) Technical institutions recognised by the Director of technical Education".

(2.) UNDER S. 43 (1) (d) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Government is empowered, by notification in the official gazette, to issue directions to the State Transport Authority regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage carriages, contract carriages and public carriers. The current directions issued in pursuance of that power, we are assured, are embodied in S. R. O. No. 565/63 dated 13 61963 and published in the Kerala gazette dated 18 61963. The directions are silent as regards the concession embodied in R. 251.

(3.) THERE was no emphasis on sub-section (1) of S. 68 by the learned Government Pleader, even though that sub-section also was mentioned in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State as a support for the rule. Only sub-section (2) was invoked by him, and, as already stated, the fate of the rule, according to him, depended solely on the scope and ambit of clause (za)of sub-section (2 ).