Shrinath Travel Agency vs State of Rajasthan and Others

V.S. Kokje, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant M/s. Shrinath Travel Agency claims to be a Tourist Transport Operator. It has several tourist permits and it owns several vehicles which are plied in the State of Rajasthan. In the petition before the learned single Judge the contention of the appellant-petitioner was that the respondents were unnecessarily harassing the appellant petitioner by seizing the vehicles for breach of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the appellant it is covered by the Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 being covered in the definition of Tourist Transport Operator contained in Section 2 (g) of the Act. It is contended further on behalf of the appellant that under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of the aforesaid rules, the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 shall not apply to the permits granted under the scheme. The complaint is that despite this position, the respondents are seizing the vehicles of the appellant and proceeding against him for breach of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition on various grounds.

It was contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that a Tourist Transport Operator covered by the Rules of 1993 can operate his vehicle as a stage carriage vehicle also because there is no specific bar under the Rules of 1993 to any such thing being done. According to the learned counsel In view of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 1993, Rules 82 to 85-A of the Rules of 1989 would not apply and therefore the Transport Authority cannot proceed against a Tourist Transport Operator for any breach of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Rules of 1989.

The argument is not acceptable to us. A Tourist Transport Operator as defined by the Rules is clearly different than a Stage Carriage Operator. The moment a Tourist Transport Operator starts using his vehicle as Stage Carriage Vehicle he shall cease to be a Tourist Transport Operator qua that vehicle. The definition of Tourist Transport Operator clearly provides that a Company or an individual engaged in a business of promotion of tourism by providing Tourist Trans-port Vehicles on Tourist Circuits and Travel Agencies and other Tourist Operators, can only be covered by the term. The moment a Tourist Transport Operator claims that he can operate his vehicle as a Stage Carriage Vehicle, he would not be a Tourist Transport Operator in respect of such vehicle. The scheme of the 1993 Rules clearly shows that it does not apply to contract carriages or stage carriages as such. The application of the Rules is confined to tourist transport alone. The stage carriage is plied for the benefit of general public and not tourist alone. The Rules of 1993 would not apply to stage carriages and therefore for any breach of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, a person plying a stage carriage can be proceeded against.

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that Vehicles of a person who operates some Tourist Vehicles and claims to be Tourist Transport Operator on that basis are not exempted from the provisions of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules if they are actually run as Contract Carriage of. Stage Carriages. Immunity from action against violation of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is only available to a Tourist Transport Operator in respect of vehicles run as Tourist Vehicles and not vehicles run as Contract Carriages or Stage Carriages. If the transport authorities find that actually a vehicle is run as a Contract Carriage or a Stage Carriage under the garb of operating a Tourist Transport Vehicle, they can proceed against the operator and such vehicle for violation of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The appellant therefore cannot claim a general immunity from operation of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules against his vehicles even if they are operated as Contract or Stage Carriages.

Needless to add, if the appellant is plying Tourist Vehicles only, complying with the Rules of 1993, he shall not be proceeded against in respect of such vehicles for breach of Rules 82 to 85-A of the Rules of 1989.

For the aforesaid reasons we find no force in this appeal. It is dismissed.