R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER alongwith others was granted permanent stage carriage permit on Ghiror Eka-Basundhara route by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.), Meerut on 20 1- 1990 with certain conditions. By condition no. 2 it was provided that the vehicle should not be more than seven years old for 'A' class route, more than ten years old for 'B' class route and more than fifteen years old for 'C class route. In this connection that R. T. A. has also directed that the aforesaid model conditions will not apply to those grantees who were plying on the route in question on the basis of temporary permits. PETITIONER has filed this writ petition challenging aforesaid model condition imposed by R. T. A. on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to impose such a condition and the impugned condition is arbitrary and discriminatory.
(2.) WHEN this writ petition was filed before this court learned Standing Counsel was granted time to seek instructions. Petition was, thereafter, listed on 28-3-1990 on which date learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks time for filing couter affidavit and this court granted the following interim order in favour of petitioner :- "In view of the averments made in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit that no Notification under Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 has been published so far, we direct that respondents shall not enforce condition no. 2 in resolution dated 20-1-90 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Agra and also shall not refuse to issue permit to the petitioner for that reason alone," The State has not filed any counter affidavit. As the question of imposing model condition by transport authorities is coming up frequently before the court we have decided to decide the writ petition and we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The writ petition is being disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court. Section 72 (2) of the new Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 empowers the R. T. A. to grant a permit for stage carriage of specified description'. Section 72 (2) is as follows : "The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to the rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the. following conditions." Section 48 (3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is quoted below, contains the similar provisions : "The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriage of a specified description or for one of more particular stage carriages and may,'subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions." This court in Masiullah v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1967 Allahabad 128( laid down that the expression 'specified description' in Section 48 (3) of the old Act, does not cover the year of manufacture or model of the vehicle, consequently the model condition imposed by Transport Authority was declared ultra vires. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Tiwari v. The State Transport Authority TJ. P., 1978 TAG 439.
(3.) ULTIMATELY the matter was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 800, where the question involved was whether the transport authorities can impose model condition while granting Mini bus permit. Honourable Supreme Court upheld this condition by holding that. "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 least 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 vehciles. 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 mental fatigue leading to unexpected collapse.......................... 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." The decision of this court in the case of Masiullah (supra) was declared by the Honourable "Supreme Court as not laying down correct law, because under Section 48 (3) power to grant a permit of the stage carriage of 'specified descriotion' will include the power to impose model condition in the permit. The Honourable Supreme Court observed "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." Regarding the case of Ramesh Chandra, 1978 TAC 439, Supra, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that, even if the vehcile is fit and has fitness certificate, the authorities can impose additional requirement in the shape of the model as it will work as a further insurance against the machine failure. This judgment was followed by Honourable, Supreme Court in S. K. Bhatia v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 988.;