MOHD. SALEEM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of petitions the question raised is whether the direction given by the Regional Transport Authority to the petitioners who are stage carriage operators plying in hill areas to replace their vehicles which are more than ten years old is legally sustainable. As the controversy raised in these petitions is identical we are disposing of the petitions by a common judgment. The Regional Transport Authority in each of these cases has caused a notice to be issued to the petitioners calling upon them to replace their vehicles which are more than ten years old. The petitioners contend that the condition imposed by the Regional Transport Authority is arbitrary and has no legal sanction. It is submitted that the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority deciding to enforce the aforesaid condition against the operators plying vehicles which are more than ten years old apart from being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction is also bad for non -compliance with the mandatory provisions of clause (xxi) of section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act which enjoins that the Regional Transport Authority shall not vary the conditions of permits or attach any further condition thereto without giving a month's notice to the holder of the permit.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed in which the stand taken is that the condition imposed is perfectly valid and proper and is designed to sub -serve public safety. It is further asserted that traffic hazards over the roads in hill areas are a menace and have been posing a serious problem for the authorities demanding an immediate action such as has been taken in the present case, namely, insistence on the condition that the vehicles plying in these areas shall not be more than ten years old. Lastly, it is submitted that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority is based on a judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in which the validity of this condition has been upheld.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Indeed, in our opinion, the controversy stands concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 800. Precisely, the same argument was advanced before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. There the petitioners were grantees of permits plying mini buses as contract carriages. They were aggrieved by the imposition of a condition fastened in their permit that the vehicles shall not be more than seven years old. The validity of this condition was assailed on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority had no power to impose such a condition. It was urged that in any case such a condition had no nexus with the statutory purpose. Their Lordships unhesitatingly rejected this submission and held that the condition imposed was not only fully authorised by the statute and was desirable in the larger interest of the pedestrians and other traffic on the roads but was clearly warranted by the phenomenal increase in the accidents on the roads. (sic) was observed that securing human safety clearly fell within the purview IInd purpose of the statute. We cannot resist quoting a passage from that decision which, to our mind, applies with greater force to the situation in hand inasmuch as there can be no denying that far greater care must be taken to prevent road accidents in the hill areas having regard to the conditions of roads in those areas and the possibility of accidents taking place if the vehicles plying in those areas are not perfectly fit for use by the traveling public. This is how their Lordships of the Supreme Court stated the law.