http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: S.K. BHATIA & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/08/1983

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1983 AIR  988            1983 SCR  (3) 595  1983 SCC  (4) 194        1983 SCALE  (2)95

ACT:      Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939-condition  fn a  permit as to age of  mini  buses-whether  infringes  Article  14  of  the Constitution.      U. P.  Motor Vehicles  (Special Provisions)  Act  1976’ section 4-scope of.

HEADNOTE:      A condition  that the  motor  vehicle  covered  by  the permit shall  not be  more than four years old, counted from the date  of registration to any time during the validity of the permit  is attached  to every  permit for  plying a mini bus. The  petitioners  contended  (i)  that  this  condition amounted  to   an  infringement   of  Article   14  of   the Constitution in  that no  such condition was attached in the case of  omnibuses and  (ii) that the authority competent to impose the condition was the authority constituted under the U. P. Act and not tho Regional Transport Authority.      Dismissing the petitions. ^      HELD: It is not correct to say that a condition similar to the  one attached  to permits  issued in the case of mini buses was  not attached to the permits issued in the case of omnibuses. In  their case too, there is a condition that the vehicle should  be replaced on the expiry of five years from the date of registration. Secondly, omnibuses and mini buses constitute different classes and are not comparable. [598 D]      The source  of  power  for  imposing  condition  18  is section 51(2)  (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act under which the authority empowered  to impose the condition is the Regional Transport Authority.  Section 4  of the U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions)  Act, 1976  has nothing  whatever to do with the  imposition of  conditions on  mini buses plying as contract carriages. That Act deals with authorization of and use of private mini buses as stage carriage within specified limits covered by an approved scheme. [598 G]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURBDICTION  : Writ  Petition Nos.  1124,4908, 9069-70,18-21, 4817,9445-48 of 1981, 1336, 2117-20, 6808 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

7219 of 1982, 2928 of 1980,1698/80 and 663 of 1981.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      S. Markandey, Mrs. C. Markandey, U.S. Prasad, R.K Jain, R.B. Mehrotra,  Ravi Prakash  Gupta and  K.K Gupta  for  the Petitioners. 596      Kapil Sibal and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. In these writ petitions, the vires of condition  No. 18  attached to  the permits issued by the respective Regional  Transport Authorities  of the  State of Uttar  Pradesh   :o  the  petitioners  for  plying  contract carriages known  as ’mini’  buses is in question. ’Mini bus’ is defined by sec. 2 (d) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act,  1976  as  meaning  "an  omnibus  which  is constructed or  adapted to  carry not  more than  35 persons excluding the  driver". Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables  the Regional  Transport  Authority  granting  a contract carriage  permit to attach in the permit any one or more of  the conditions  enumerated in  that provision. Item (x) of  Section 51  (2) reads "any other condition which may be prescribed".  Condition No.  18 is  a condition  which is prescribed and  attached in  every permit  for plying a mini bus. The  condition in  its original  form stood  thus: "The motor vehicle  covered by  the permit shall not be more than four years  old counted from the date of registration to any time during  the validity of the permit." The period of four years originally  stipulated was  increased  to  "seven"  on September 28,  1978 and  again raised  to "nine" on December 21, 1981.  The vires of the condition was questioned earlier by some owners of mini buses on the ground that it was ultra vires the power under sec. 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But, in Subhash Chandra And ors v. State of U.P. and ors.(1) this Court  held that the condition was within the limits of the power  conferred by  sec. 51  (2) tracing  its source to Item (X) of sec. 51 (2). The Court observed:           Section 51  (2) of  the Motor  Vehicles  Act,      1939 is  geared  to  public  safety,  not  private      profit and  casts a solemn duty not to be deterred      by any  pressure except  the  pressure  of  social      justice to  Indian lives  moving in buses, walking      on roads  or even  standing on  margins ..........      ...............................................      .........."           "Section 51  (2) (x) authorises the impost of      any condition,  of course, having a nexus with the      statutory 597      purpose. It is undeniable that human safety is one      such purpose.  The State’s neglect in this area of      policing public  transport is  deplorable but when      it does  act by  prescribing a condition the court      cannot  be  persuaded  into  little  legalism  and      harmful negativism.  The short question is whether      the prescription that the bus shall be at a seven-      year old model one is relevant to the condition of      the vehicle and its passengers’ comparative safety      and comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it      is. The  older the  model the  less the chances of      the latest  safety measures  being built  into the      vehicle. Every  new model incorporates new devices      to reduce  danger and  promote comfort  Every  new      model assures  its age  to  be  young,  fresh  and      strong, less  likely to suffer sudden failures and      breakages, less  susceptible to  wear and tear and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    moral fatigue leading to unexpected collapse. When      we buy  a car  or any other machine why do we look      for the  latest model  ? Vintage vehicles are good      for centenarian  display of  curios and cannot but      be mobile  menaces on  our  notoriously  neglected      highways. We  have no hesitation to hold, from the      point of  view of  the human rights of road users,      that the  condition regarding  the  model  of  the      permitted bus  is within  jurisdiction and  not to      prescribe such  safety clauses  is  abdication  of      statutory duty".      ..................................................           "We are  clear that a later model is a better      safeguard and,  more relevantly  to the point, the      year of  the make and the particulars of the model      are part of the description". An agrument  appears to  have been  advanced that sec. 38 of the Motor  Vehicles Act  obliged  every  transport  vehicle, which  expression  included  contract  carriages  like  mini buses, to  carry a  certificate of  fitness  and  therefore, Condition No.  18 was  superfluous and  derogated  from  the requirement of  sec. 38.  This argument  was not accepted by the court, who observed.           "The unreported ruling in Civil Writ No. 7317      of 1975  interprets s.  38 of the Act and the non-      issuance of 598      the fitness  certificate because the model was not      recent enough.  May be  the vehicle, regardless of      the year  of its  make, may be fit and the refusal      to certify  fitness merely  because it  is old may      not always  be  right.  But  we  see  no  conflict      between a vehicle being fit to ride and the condi-      tion, as  an  additional  requirement  and  safety      factor, in  the shape  of the  year of  the model.      This is  an extra  measure,  a  further  insurance      against machine  failure and cannot contradict the      ’fitness’ provision".      The vires  of Condition No. 18 is once again challenged in these  writ petitions. The grounds of challenge, however, are most  insubstantial. It  was said that there was no such condition in  the case of omnibuses and therefore, there was an infringement  of Art.  14  of  the  Constitution.  It  is incorrect to say that there is no such condition in the case of omnibuses.  In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed in a  Writ Petition Nos. 18-21 of 1981, it is stated that in the case of omnibuses, there is a condition that the vehicle should be replaced on the expiry of five years from the date of registration. Further omnibuses and mini buses constitute different classes and are not comparable. Another submission was that condition No. 18 is impossible of fulfillment since one of the manufacturers of chassis of mini buses (Telco) is no longer  manufacturing such chassis. This is denied in the counter-affidavit   and   we   presume   there   are   other manufacturers in  the  country,  who  make  or  produce  the required chassis. In any case, that is a situation which can be remedied  by the  transport authorities.  The petitioners can always pursue the remedies given to them under the Motor Vehicles Act  by way  of appeal and revision. We fail to see any  infringement   of  any  constitutional  right.  Another submission was  that the  authority competent  to impose the condition, was not the Regional Transport Authority, but the competent authority  under sec  4 of the Utter Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act. Vie have already referred to Subhash  Chander’s case  where it  has been held that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

source of  a power  for imposing  condition No 18 is sec. 51 (2) (x)  of the  Motor Vehicles  Act. Under sec. 51 (2) (x), the authority  empowered to  impose  the  condition  is  the Regional Transport Authority. Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles  (Special  Provisions)  Act  deals  with  the authorisation  of   use  of  private  mini  buses  as  stage carriages within  specified limits  covered by  an  approved scheme and has nothing whatever to do with the imposition of conditions on  mini buses  playing as contract carriages. It was suggested that the real 599 object of  Condition  No.  13  is  not  the  safety  of  the passengers as  thought in  Subhash Chander’s  case,  but  to eliminate mini  buses from  the field.  There is no basis at all for  this submission.  As we said, there is no substance in any one of these submissions advanced by the petitioners. All the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs. P.B.R.                                  Petitions dismissed. 600