AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Mr.S.Sathiachandran, practising advocate of this Court has filed this Public Interest Litigation, seeking to issue a Writ of
Mandamus for the following reliefs.
a) directing the respondents herein to restore the normal fleet of the second and third respondent Corporations and other Transport Corporations
in the State within such period as this Court may direct;
b) directing the respondents herein to periodically review and increase the fleet in proportion to the population;
c) directing the respondents to periodically maintain and operate the fleet strictly in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil
Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989;
d) directing the respondents herein not to collect unfair fares not authorised under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 under the guise of
LSS, LSS fare and PP services;
e) directing the fourth respondent to regularly lay, relay and maintain the roads under its jurisdiction and control;
f) award costs;
and
g) pass such further or other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Even at the outset, the petitioner fairly admits that he is pressing only in respect of the reliefs prayed in ""b and d"". In view of the same, let us
consider whether the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of writ of mandamus/any other direction in respect of those two reliefs.
The relief claimed in ""b"" reads as under.
b) directing the respondents herein to periodically review and increase the fleet in proportion to the population;
According to the petitioner, the present existing fleet strength are not sufficient to cope up with the persons using the Transport Corporations
buses. According to him, due to less number of buses, the commuters are compelled to travel by the auto rickshaws paying exorbitant fares
through their noses. He has also stated that about 20% of the fleet are constantly under repair and unworkable condition.
As against the said claim, on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, the Assistant Manager (Legal) Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.,
Chennai, has filed a counter affidavit. The informations furnished in the counter affidavit show that the present Transport Corporation is operating
2500 buses everyday in and around the city of Chennai and nearly 36 lakhs of people are travelling in these buses. The Corporation is operating
buses as Ordinary Services, Express Services, Limited Stop Services, etc and has been serving to the people of all walks of life and also people
coming to Chennai from various parts of the country. It is also stated that inspite of escalation of various cost of the spare parts and diesel prices
hike, the Corporation has not increased the bus fair for the past five years and maintaining all the fleets properly. There is no scarcity of spare parts
as alleged by the petitioner and the respondent Corporation is taking effective steps to prevent excessive speed driving by the driver. The
Corporation is fulfilling the legitimate expectations of the public by providing them regular bus services and are operating scheduled time for their
travel so as to reach any destination in time. It is to be noted that the petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation in December, 1996.
Considering the increased number of buses and other categorical statements regarding proper maintenance etc., we are of the view that no specific
direction is required. However, it is made clear that if there is a demand, it is but proper on the part of the respondents to increase the fleet
strength.
The second relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under.
d) directing the respondents herein not to collect unfair fares not authorised under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 under the guise of
LSS, LSS fare and PP services;
With regard to the above claim, in the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Manager (legal), he has stated that the respondents are not
collecting any unfair fares not authorised under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules and the fares collected are supported by the Government
orders. Though those details are not available in the counter affidavit, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 has placed necessary
Government orders and notifications issued therein. As per G.O.Ms.No.1204 Home (Transport VII) Department dated 05.12.2001, the
Government have incorporated the revised fare structures and published the same in an Extraordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
dated 05.12.2001. Before going into the notifications, it is relevant to note that Section 67(1)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the
State Government to fix fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) to all categories of vehicle viz., Stage carriages,
contract carriages and goods carriages. Though the petitioner has submitted that there is no specific provision, which enables the Government to
collect different fares in respect of different type of vehicles, we are satisfied that the above referred provisions empowers the Government to
classify various type of vehicles and fix different types of fairs for the same.
The first notification issued pursuant to the above mentioned Government Order, which is applicable to the Metropolitan Services in Chennai
Metropolitan Area makes it clear that different rates have been fixed for Limited Stop Services, Night Services and Deluxe Services. In the light of
the provisions referred to above and the Government order mentioned, we are unable to accept the apprehension raised by the petitioner. On the
other hand, taking note of the interest of the travelling public, we hold that the Government have power to classify various type of vehicles and fix
different type of fares. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.
Except the above said contentions no other contentions have been pressed into service. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any
merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No.83 of 1998 is also dismissed.