UNION OF INDIA Vs. ISHWAR PAL ATTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision reveals a unique effort made by a few citizens of Chandigarh to put the authorities responsible for running bus transport in the city on its toes. Taking aid of S.91 of the Civil P.C., whereunder any two or more persons with the leave of the Court can, in the case of wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public, seek a declaration and injunction and such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff-respondents approached the Court of Shri Amarjit Singh Katari, P.C.S. Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh complaining that the public transport provided by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking was in a complete mess inasmuch as neither were its buses roadworthy nor their drivers physically fit which had resulted in numerous accidents in the town making it hazardous for people to move on roads. The Court having granted leave to them, as envisaged under S.91, Civil P.C. also entertained their application for interim relief and passed the following order, now sought to be impugned in this petition :-

(2.) The operation of this order was stayed ad interim on motion by this Court.

(3.) Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioners Chandigarh Administration and the General Manager, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh, has challenged the approach of the learned Judge in face of the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the rules framed thereunder. In particular, my attention has been invited to S.38 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereunder it is incumbent for a transport vehicle to be carrying a certificate of fitness in form 'H' as set forth in the First Schedule for all time in order to remain validly registered for the purpose of S.22. Sub-sec.(2) specifically provides that a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period, not being in any case more than two years or less than six months, as may be specified in the certificate by the prescribed authority. The requirements essential to be fulfilled for obtaining a certificate of fitness are those as given in Chapter V of the Act comprising of Ss.69, 69A and 70 of the said Act Therein, a variety of considerations come into play before a vehicle can be granted a certificate of fitness. Further, under the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules, 1940, a certificate of fitness is required to be given by a Board of Inspection comprising of two members. One of them, as is clear from R. 3.10, is to be an Assistant Commissioner, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate deputed for the purpose by the District Magistrate. The second one is to be an experienced motor mechanic appointed by the State Government. The Board of Inspection cannot alone be of Police Officers. In the event of difference of opinion between the two members with regard to the fitness of a vehicle, the decision has to be negative in character. The method adopted is uniform for the grant or renewal of the certificate of fitness as also the cancellation thereof. Now in the presence of these provisions, Mr. Ashok Bhan says that when the vehicles with the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking are presumed to be carrying certificates of fitness valid for such period, as individually applicable to each vehicle, there was no occasion for the learned trial Judge to appoint a Committee of so-called experts to displace the Board of Inspection constituted under the Rules. Rather, he was emphatic that the Board of Inspection exists and is effectively functioning when required to initially grant and then renew the certificates of fitness from time to time. He also emphasised the point that in the pleadings before the Court below, the plaintiffs had nowhere alleged that the vehicles run by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking were not carrying certificates of fitness.