SHIV ADHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the "Act") empowers the Central Government to issue a notification in relation to maximum gross weight of a vehicle, its registration with reference to the size, number, nature and size of tyres attached to the wheels of the vehicles and to issue registration certificate with regard to a transport vehicles other than a motor cab. Section 59 of the Act further empowers Central Government having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette to specify life of motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of the Act. The Central Government is further empowered to issue different ages for different classes of vehicles. Sub-section (3) of section 59 of the Act opens with a non obstante clause and makes it mandatory that no prescribed authority or authorised testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-section (1). This power vested in the Central Government is intended to effectively achieve an object which again is in the larger public interest. The main thrust of submission of the petitioner in the above petition is that in face of provisions of section 59 of the Act, the State Government has no power to fix the age limit of the vehicles and to that extent the Government Resolution No. 29 dated 4th August, 2008 is without jurisdiction and serves no public interest. This argument of the petitioner is based on misconception of law inasmuch as the power contemplated under section 59 of the Act is distinct and different than the power vested in the State Government/appropriate authority under sections 66 and 74 of the Act. Under section 66 of the Act no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority. The proviso to section 66(1) of the Act are of some significance. They read as under:

(2.) Similarly, section 74 deals with grant of contract carriage permit. Sub-section (2) of section 74 provides that the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rules that may be made in the said Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: "(i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that except in accordance with specified conditions, no contract of hiring other than an extension or modification of a subsisting contract, may be entered into outside the specified area; (iii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicles, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (iv) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in any contract carriage in addition to, or to the exclusion of, passengers; (v) that, in the case of motorcabs, specified fares or rates of fares shall be charged and a copy of the fare table shall be exhibited on the vehicle; (vi) that, in the case of vehicles other than motorcabs, specified rates of hiring not exceeding specified maximum shall be charged;

(3.) The powers under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 74 of the Act are of a very large magnitude and empower the concerned Authority having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters to impose any condition to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type, and further empower the Regional Transport Authority, after giving notice, to vary the conditions stated in the permit or attach to the permit further conditions in terms of section 74(2)(ix). Section 74(2)(xiii) provides that the Competent Authority can impose any other conditions which may be prescribed. These powers under which the State Government, Central Government or Regional Transport Authority operate are distinct. There can be a complete prohibition under section 59 of the Act which renders a vehicle inoperatable, while under sections 66 and 74 of the Act, it is limited to grant of a permit for a vehicle used as public transport or a contract carriage. Vide the impugned Resolution, though reference was made to 15 to 20 years old taxis running on CNG/LPG, on examining and knowing their condition they being unable to ply and ferry the passengers, it was specifically noticed that the age is to be fixed by the Central Government which has a right to fix the age of the vehicle but keeping in view the directions of the Supreme Court in various cases, including order dated 22nd September, 1998 in the case of (MC. Mehta Vs. Government and ors.)', in Writ Petition No. (Civil) 13029 of 1985 reported in 1998 DGLS (soft) 934 : 1998(8) S.C.C. 206 and in the larger public interest and to prevent pollution, decision was taken to remove such vehicles from being used and plied on road in absolute terms. It only admitted and infact has spelt out the terms and conditions for grant of extention of permit to any transport public and/or contract carriage vehicles. It is a power which has been exercised by the State, as is clear from its affidavit, in terms of sections 66 and 74 of the Act and is not relatable to section 59 of the Act. Thus, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is without any merit.