M. K. Hanjura, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the Notification SRO 50 dated 16th of February, 2016, issued by the Government of J&K, in terms of which, all the passenger vehicles, run, managed and operated by the petitioners under the Motor Transport Service Licenses, have been directed to equip their vehicles with 'Speed Governors' conforming to the Standard AIS : 018/2001, the petitioners have filed this petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the amendment carried out in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short Rules of 1989), vide Notification No. G.S.R. 290 (E) dated 15-04-2015 and in terms of sub-rule (2) of the said Notification, the State Governments have been empowered to issue appropriate Notifications and it has been left at the discretion of the State Government to apply the requirement of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, which reads as under : "118. Speed governor:- (1) Every transport vehicle notified by the Central Government under sub section (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), save as provided herein, and manufactured on or after the 1st October 2015, shall be equipped or fitted by the vehicle manufacturer, either in the manufacturing state or at the dealership stage, with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) having maximum pre-set speed of 80 kilometer per hour conforming to the Standard A IS 018/2011 as amended from to time. Provided further that the transport vehicles that are; (i) Two Wheelers; (ii) Three Wheelers; (iii)Quadricycles; (iv) Four wheeled and used for carriage of passengers and their luggage, with seating capacity not exceeding eight passengers in addition to driver seat (MI Category) and not exceeding 3500 kilogram gross vehicle weight); (iv) Fire tenderer ; (v) Ambulances; (vii) Police vehicles; (viii) Verified and certified by a testing agency specified in rule 126 to have maximum rated speed of not more than 80 kilometer per hour shall not be required to be equipped or fitted with speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function); Provided further that the transport vehicles manufactured on or after 1st October 2015, that are dumpers, tankers, school buses, those carrying hazardous goods or any other category of vehicles, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette from time to time, shall be equipped or fitted by the vehicle manufacture, either in the manufacturing stage or at the dealership stage, with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) having maximum speed of 60 kilometer per hour conforming to the Standard A IS 018/2001, as amended from time to time. (2) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify on or before 1st October 2015, the categories of transport vehicles registered prior to the 1st October 2015, which are not already fitted with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) and are not covered under the first proviso to sub-rule 1 above, that such transport vehicles shall be equipped or fitted by the operator of such vehicle (sic) April, 2016 with a speed limiting function) having maximum pre-set speed of 80 kilometer per hour or such lower speed limit as specified by the State Government from time to time, conforming to the Standard AIS: 018/2001, as amended from time to time. Provided that the categories of transport vehicles carrying hazardous goods and those transport vehicles and are dumpers, tankers or school buses, registered prior to the 1st October, 2015 and not already fitted with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) shall be equipped or fitted by the operator of such vehicle, with a speed governor (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) having maximum pre-set speed of 60 kilometer per hour or such other lower speed limit as may be specified by the State Government, conforming to the Standard AIS: 018/2001, as amended from time to time."
(2.) The petitioners have further stated that the amendment has given a liberty to the State Governments to identify the vehicles that need to be fitted with the 'Speed Governors'. It is further stated that such a power delegated to the State Governments is patently arbitrary as there is nothing to state as to which kind of vehicles have to be equipped with the 'Speed Governors' in the rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. The petitioners have further stated that sub rule (2) of Rule 118 , conferring unbridled and unchannelized power to the State Governments, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The petitioners have further stated that they have no grievance insofar as new vehicles are concerned, as the same are already fitted with such devices, which monitor and reduce the speed. However, they are peeved about the amendment made in the Rules of 1989, directing fitting of the 'Speed Governors' to the vehicles, which have been registered prior to 01-10-2015. The petitioners have further stated that as a policy decision, the Central Government empowered the State Governments to issue appropriate Notification, keeping in view the requirement of each State, with regard to the transport vehicles, which is not uniform and there are States where majority of the areas are hilly and the condition of the roads is such that it is impossible for the drivers of the vehicles to increase the speed and ply them at a speed of more than 30/40 kmh. In this view of the matter, installation of the Speed Controlling Devices, which costs between Rs.15000/- to Rs. 20,000/- would be a cumbersome burden on the owners of the vehicles besides being futile. The petitioners have further stated that in the State of J&K, particularly in the valley of Kashmir, hardly has any accident been caused by a speeding vehicle as the roads are not spacious and are not wide enough to allow the driver to drive the vehicle beyond the speed of 60 kmh. The petitioners have further stated that the authorities ought to have worked out a plan and obtained technical opinion on the over all effect, of the installation of the 'Speed Governors' . The State Government, without considering the pros and cons and without applying its mind to all these aspects, has, in an arbitrary manner, issued the impugned Notification. The petitioners have further stated that this move of the State Government is impeding the transport industry from seeking Fitness Certificates from the concerned quarters, thus, there is every apprehension that the transport industry would come to a halt. The petitioners have further stated that having regard to the pathetic plight of the transport industry, which is in a very bad shape, given the state of affairs in the valley of Kashmir, they are not in a position to incur an extra expenditure to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for installation of 'Speed Control Device' and that too from a retrospective date. The petitioners have further stated that in terms of the existing position of the vehicles, the vehicles completing 25 years of service are to be phased out, therefore, there is no logic in directing installation of the said device on the vehicles which are to be phased out within next few months. It is further stated that the impugned Notification has left the petitioners with no choice but to approach the Hon'ble Court by the medium of this writ petition seeking a restraint to be placed on the respondents from applying the Notification impugned to the vehicles registered prior to 01-10-2015.
(3.) In the objections filed by the official respondents, in addition to challenging the maintainability of the writ petition, it is stated that in pursuance to the Notification bearing No. 290-(E) dated 15-04-2015, issued by the Government of India, with regard to the installation of 'Speed Governors' in all transport vehicles registered prior to 01-10- 2015, the State Government also issued a Notification vide SRO 50 dated 16-02-2016, indicating that the vehicles registered in the State of J&K prior to 01-10-2015 should be fitted with 'Speed Governors'. It is pleaded in the objections that the figures given by the petitioners for phasing out of the condemned vehicles in the coming years, is exaggerated and totally wrong and baseless aimed at misleading the Hon'ble Court. It is further stated that the State Government is committed to provide best transport services to the people and they are in the process of formulating policy to provide the vehicles, which are modern, comfortable, eco-friendly and fuel efficient to the people to change the entire scenario of the public transport in the State and in this regard the recommendations of the stake holders are in active consideration of the Government. Respondents have further stated that the date of the compliance of the impugned Notification was extended by the Government by three months to provide a breathing time to the transport companies. The respondents have further stated that the issue of installation of 'Speed Governors' was discussed threadbare in a meeting held on 06-04-2016, attended by the MD, J&K SRTC, General Manager, J&K SRTC, Transport Commissioner and the Secretary to Government, Transport Department. The transport associations were also subsequently called and the issue of effective implementation of the 'Speed Governors' was discussed. It is also contended that the cost of each Speed Governor is in the range of Rs.3000 to Rs.12000 and the petitioners have projected an exaggerated account of events. The respondents have further stated that there being a genuine need for regulating the transport system in the State in order to minimize the intensity of the road accidents resulting in loss of precious lives due to over speeding, the impugned Notification was issued. It is further stated that there are guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways as also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for implementation of Notification for installation of 'Speed Governors', and the same have been circulated to the respondents, who are duty bound to effectively monitor and ensure its strict compliance. In the end, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.;