Yatayat Aur Paryatan Vikas Sahkari Sangh and Another vs The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others

K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J.

Since the point involved in this writ petition and writ petitions Nos. 8864, 10040, 11548, 12046, 12251, 12521, 12620 and 13047 of 1984 is the same; the order passed in this writ petition will govern those cases also.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Yatayat Aur Paryatan Vikash Sahkari Sangh, Rishikesh and Tehri Garhwal Motor Owners Corporation Private Ltd., Rishikesh for quashing the order dated 1-2-1984 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the orders dated 20-9-1983 and 21-4- 1984 passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Pauri (District Garhwal) and the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, respectively.

Petitioner No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. It has on its roll members who operate their vehicles under it. Petitioner No. 2 and its members are also stage carriage operators. A list of members of the Petitioner societies has been attached as Annexures (I) and (1-A) respectively. Their vehicles, according to the petition, had been declared to be in a fit condition by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act till the end of 1985. At the stage of grant of permits or at any subsequent stage, no condition was placed on the permits of the Petitioners and their members that they would have to change their vehicles at a particular stage or after some time.

u/s 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, there was a prohibition that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of .a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven unless the vehicle carried a registration mark. Section 38 of the Act required the obtaining of a certificate of fitness for transport vehicles in Form H as set forth in the First Schedule to the Act issued by the prescribed authority to the effect that the vehicles complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V of the Act and the rules made there under. A certificate of fitness could remain effective for such period, not being in any case more than two years or less than six months, as may be specified in the certificate by the prescribed authority The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 38, which dealt with vehicles not plying in hilly areas, substitutes ''one year'' for the words ''six months'' occurring in Sub-section (2).

In the instant case, an appeal and a revision were preferred by Syed Iqrar Ali against an order dated 21st June, 1983 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, by which he was aggrieved. He agitated that the Regional Transport Authority committed an error in issuing fitness certificate to vehicles against the decision of the Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, . In a nutshell, the case of Syed Iqrar Ali was that as the vehicles were old and were not fit to be plied in hilly areas, the Regional Transport Authority should not have granted or renewed registration certificates in respect thereof. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that the fixation of age limit of vehicles at 20 years by the Regional Transport Authority was unjustified and illegal and consequently directed the authority to re-fix the same in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court. After the case going back, the Regional Transport Authority gave a notice to members of the Petitioner societies to the effect that by 20-10-1984 they should replace their vehicles by superior models otherwise after the said date, vehicles ten years old will not be allowed to ply on hilly tracks.

The Petitioners have come to this Court with the contention that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was wrong in making observations about the age of vehicles without affording opportunity to them. It was also contended that the operative portion of the order of the tribunal was illegal inasmuch as no age could be fixed.

Upon the presentation of the writ petition, the following stay order v/as passed by this Court on 10-9-1984:

Issue notice.

In the meantime, the Respondent are restrained, frwn implementing the condition requiring replacement of the provided the Petitioners'' vehicles are otherwise found fit.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires the obtaining of a certificate of fitness for transport vehicles.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri L.P. Naithani urged that u/s 59 of the new Act as the power to fix age limit of a motor vehicle has been conferred on the Central Government by specifying the life to be reckoned from the date of its manufacture the orders impugned by means of this writ petition have become illegal. We do not agree with the Petitioners'' Counsel. Sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the new Act which is a saving provision, lays down in Clause (b) that any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to have effect after the commencement of this Act under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act had not been passed. Admittedly, no notification u/s 59 of the: new Act has been issued Therefore, on the basis of Section 59, Counsel for the Petitioners could not succeed m getting the orders of the authorities below demolished.

To us, however, it appears that as the period for, which the certificates of fitness. bad been granted has expired, the question as to whether the vehicles of the Petitioners and their members are entitled to get fitness certificate may be examined by the Regional Transport Authority or any other authority which may be prescribed for that purpose. Only upon the vehicles being found fit, registration or renewal of registration in respect thereof should be granted. This may be done by the authority concerned within a period of three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order where after the stay, order dated 10-9-1984 would lapse.

We are not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the fixation of age of vehicles in this case was arbitrary. While fixing the age, the authorities did take into account relevant factors.

In the result, subject to the observations; made above, the writ petition is dismissed.