DEVEE MOTORS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the Inter-state stage carriage operators. THE challenge in these Writ Petitions is directed against an order passed by the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum dated. 20. 6. 1994 directing the Regional Transport Officers to fix the number of standing passengers the vehicle may be required to carry in the vehicle. THE above order was issued by the State Transport Authority under R. 267 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which deals with the passenger capacity of the vehicles. Sub-R. (2) of the said rules deals with the standing capacity which runs as follows: "standing capacity:- THE State or Regional Transport authority may, in respect of any public service vehicle other than a motor cab, fix the number of standing passengers the vehicle may be permitted to carry or the permit holder may be required to carry in the vehicle: Provided dial - (a)such standing passengers may be permitted to be carried only in case of vehicles wherein the internal height or head room is not less than one hundred and sixty seven centimeters and five millimeters, and (b) the number of standing passengers so fixed shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the number of passengers for whom mere is seating accommodations as specified in sub-r. (1)". Provided further that fifty per cent standing passengers may be allowed in "city Services" or "town Services". THE State or Regional Transport Authority shall determine which are the City or Town Services for the purpose of this rule".

(2.) THE main complaint raised by the petitioners is that before taking Ext. P1 decision by the State Transport Authority no notice was issued to the petitioners. THEir further case is that pursuant to the said direction, the Regional Transport Officers are taking steps to fix the number of standing passengers in the Registration Certificate and thereby to enhance the tax payable by them in relation to the respective vehicles. On the other hand, the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents submits that sub-r. (2) of R. 267 which authorises the State Transport Authority to fix the standing capacity of a vehicle, does not provide any notice to its registered owner before taking a decision to fix the number of standing passengers permitted to carry in the vehicle. It is no doubt true that R. 267 (2) does not in terms provide for a notice to the registered owner of the vehicles before fixing the number of standing passengers.

(3.) EXT. P1 order was passed as early as on 20. 6. 1994 and its implementation was kept in abeyance in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the case of the petitioners. In view of the discussion herein before, I direct the State Transport Authority to afford a personal hearing to the petitioners before EXT. P1 order is implemented against them. The petitioners are consequently directed to file representations before the State transport Authority within a period of one month from today setting out their grievances. If such representation are filed within the time stipulated, the state Transport Authority is directed to consider and dispose of them on merits and in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representations. After hearing the petitioners, if any amendment is found to be necessary, the State Transport Authority is directed to make consequential amendments in the order impugned or pass fresh orders as deem fit and proper. The interim order staying the implementation of EXT. P1 is kept in force till such decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, in the case of the petitioners in these original petitions. The original petitions are disposed of as above. . .