AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.—The challenge in this writ petition is against Annexures-A, B, C and D Notifications issued by the Government of Karnataka. The impugned notifications relate to the fixing of Speed Governors in transport vehicles mentioned in the notifications. The 1st petitioner is the President of Taxi Men''s Association, Udupi District Petitioners-2 and 3 are the Taxi Men''s Association of the Dakshina Kannada and Udupi Districts. The 4th petitioner is the General Secretary of the Dakshina Kannada Taxi Men''s Association. Petitioners-5 and 6 are owners of Maxi Cab and Tata Sumo vehicles which are classified as Maxi Cabs. The contention of the petitioners is that Maxi Cabs should not have been brought under the purview of the impugned notifications as they are passenger vehicles. It is also contended that Speed Governors are not available in plenty in the market
According to Section 110(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Central Government is competent to make Rules regarding Speed Governors. According to Rule 118(1) of the Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 on and from the commencement of the said rule, such transport vehicles as may be notified by the State Governments in the Official Gazette shall be fitted by the operator of such transport vehicle with a Speed Governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the Standard AIS:018 as amended from time to time specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards in such manner that the Speed Governor can be sold with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with without the seal being broken. According to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 118 the Speed Governor of every transport vehicle shall be so set that the vehicle is incapable of being driven at a speed in excess of the maximum pre-set speed of the vehicle except down an incline. Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 came into force on 01.07.1993.
It was in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 that the Government of Karnataka issued Annexure-A Notification dated 28.03.2005 specifying the transport vehicles which shall be fitted by the operator with a Speed Governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the standard AIS:018 as amended from time to time. One of the categories of transport vehicles mentioned in Annexure-A Notification is "Maxi Cabs". Annexures-B, C and D Notifications relate to extension of time granted to the operators for fitting Speed Governors on the transport vehicles.
In Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 no distinction is made between the goods vehicles and passenger vehicles. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the contention of the petitioners that Maxi Cabs could not have been brought under the purview of the impugned notifications.
Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum speed or below the minimum speed fixed for the vehicle under the Act or by or under any other law for the time being in force. Maxi Cabs also are motor vehicles governed by the provisions contained in Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rule 118 providing for Speed Governors was made for enforcing the provisions contained in Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence there is no logic in contending that Maxi Cabs should be exempted from fitting Speed Governors.
We also do not find any merit in the contention that Speed Governors are not available in the market The Government of Karnataka has approved the Speed Governors manufactured by eight companies. Moreover, the implementation of the rule has been in a phased manner. Thus under the impugned notifications, vehicles already registered will be required to fit Speed Governors when they seek renewal of the fitness certificate during the period of twelve months from 01.07.1987 to 30.06.2008. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention that the owners of Maxi Cabs will face real hardship in complying with the requirements under the impugned notifications. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.