Holding

Condition No. 18 is a valid safety measure within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority and does not contravene Article 14.

Summary

The petitioners, owners of mini‑buses, challenged Condition No. 18 attached to their contract‑carriage permits, which limited the age of the vehicle (originally four years, later seven). They argued that the condition violated Article 14 because omnibuses were not subject to a similar restriction, that it was ultra‑vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the Regional Transport Authority lacked power to impose it, and that it conflicted with the fitness‑certificate requirement of Section 38. The Court held that omnibuses also carry an age‑replacement condition, that mini‑buses constitute a different class, and that the age limit is a reasonable safety measure within the power conferred by Section 51(2)(x) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The authority to impose the condition is the Regional Transport Authority, not the body under the U.P. Special Provisions Act, and the condition does not infringe Article 14 nor conflict with Section 38. Consequently, all the writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Condition No. 18 limiting the age of mini‑buses is within the statutory power of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 51(2)(x) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Whether the condition violates Article 14 of the Constitution by treating mini‑buses differently from omnibuses.
Whether the authority under the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976, Section 4, can impose the condition.
Whether the condition is ultra vires or superfluous to the fitness‑certificate requirement of Section 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the condition is impossible to comply with due to the unavailability of certain chassis manufacturers.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939s. 38, s. 51(2)(x)
U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976s. 4

Subjects

Article 14Motor Vehicles Actage restrictionmini‑busRegional Transport Authoritypublic safetyconstitutional lawdiscriminationstatutory interpretation

Judgment

595
S. ~. BHATIA & OTHERS
A
••
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

August 12, 1983
B
(0. A. DESAI AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY JJ.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-condition In a permit as to aKe of mini buses-
whether infringes Article 14 of the Constitution.

U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) A.ct. 1976' section 4-scope of.

A condition that the motor vehicle covered by the permit shall not be
c
more than four years old, counted from the date of registration to any ·time
during the validity of the permit is attached to every permit for plying a mini
bus. The petitioners contended (i) that this condition amounted to an infringe-
ment of Article 14 of the Constitution in that.no such condition was attached "'·
in the case of omnibuses and (ii) that the authority competent to impose the
condition was the authority constituted under the U. P.· Act and not the D
Regional Transport Authority.

Disinissing the petitions.

HELD : It is not correct to say that a condition similar to the ·one
attached to permits issued in the case of mini buses was not attached to the
permits issued in the case of omnibuses. In their case too, there is a condition E
that the vehicle should be replaced on the expiry of five years from the date of
registration. Secondly, omnibuses and mini buses constitute different classes
and are not comparable. [598 DJ

The source of power for imposing condition 18 is section 51(2) (x) of
the Motor Vehicles Act under which the authority empowered to impose the F
condition is the Regional Transport Authority. Section 4 of the U. P. Motor
Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 has nothing whatever to do with the
imposition of conditions on mini buses plying as contract carriages. Tbat Act
deals with authorisation of and use of private mini buses as stage carriages
withi~ sp~cified I~mits covered by an approved scheme. [598-<'.iJ

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 1124, 4908, 9069· G
70, 18-21, 4817, 9445•48 of 1981, 1336; 2117·20, 6808 and 7219 of
· 1982, 2928of1980, 1698/80 and 663 of 1981.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
H
S. Markandey, Mrs. C. Markandey, U.S. Prasad, R.K. Jain,
R.B. Mehrotra, Ravi Prakash Gupta and K.K. Gupta for. the.
Petitioners. ·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [i983j 3 s.c.R..

Kapi/ Sibal and Mrs. Shobha Dixit for the Respondents.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. In these. writ petitions, the vires of
condition No. 18 attached to the permits issued by the respective
Regional Transport Authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh :o the
B
petitioners for plying contract carriages known as 'mini' buses is in
question. 'Mini bus' is defined by sec. 2 (d) of the U.P. Motor
Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 as meaning "an omnibus
which is constructed or adapted to carry riot more than 35 persons
excluding the driver". Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act
c enables the Regional Transport Authority granting a contract
carriage permit to attach in the permit any one or more of the
conditions enumerated in that provision. Item (x} of Section 51 (2}
reads."any other condition which· may be prescribed". .Condition
No. 18 is a condition which is prescribed and attached in every permit ·
for plying a miui bus. The condition in its original form stood thus :
D "The motor vehicle covered by the permit shall not be more than
four years old counted from the date of registration to any .time
during the validity of the permit." The period of four years originally
stipulated was increased to "seveu" on September -28, 1978 and
again raised to "nine" on December 21, 1981. · The vires of the
; • j '

condition was questioned earlier by some owners of mini buses on
the ground that it was ultra vires the power ·under sec. 51 (2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act. But, in Subhash Chandra And Ors v.· State
of U.P. and Ors,(1) this Court held that the condition was within the
limits of the power conferred by sec. 51 (.2) tracing its source to Item
(X) of sec. 51 (2). The Court observed :
F
Section 51 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is·
. geared to public safety, not private profit and casts a
solemn duty not to be deterred by any pressure except the
pressure of social justice to Indian lives moving in buses,
G walking on reads or even standing on margins ............. ..
. .................................................. ........... ........... .. .
............................................................................ "
"Section 51 (2) (x) authorises the impost of any
·H condition, of course, having a nexus with the statutory

(I) [1980) 2 S.C.R. 1024.
,
s.k. BHATIA v. U.P. STATE Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 59~
purpose: Itis undeniable that human safety is one such
purpose. The State's neglect in this area of policing .A
public transport is deplorable but when it does act by
prescribing a condition the court cannot be persuaded
into little legalism and harmful negativism. The short
question is whether the prescription that the bus shall be
at a seven-year old model one is relevant to the condition
B
of the vehicle and its passengers' comparative safety and
comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it is. The
older the model, the less the chances of the latest safety
m~asures being built into the vehicle. Every new model
incorporates new devices to reduce danger and promote
comfort Every new model assures its age to be young, c
fresh and strong, less likely to suffer sudden failures and
breakages, less susceptible to wear and tear and moral
fatigue leading to unexpected collapse. When we buy a
car or any other machine why do we look for the latest
model ? Vintage vehicles are good for centenarian display
of curios and cannot but be mobile menaces on our not- D
oriously neglected highways. We have no hesitation to
hold, from the poiut of view of the human rights of road
users, that the condition regarding the model of the
permitted bus is within jurisdiction and not to prescribe
such safety clauses is abdication of statutory duty". E
............... ., ........................................................ .. . ,

........................ ............................ ... ................. .
•••••••••••••••••• "'" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---·· h •••

"We are clear that a later model is a better safeguard · F
and, more relevantly to the point, the year of the make
and tbe particulars. of the model are part of the
description". ·

An agrument appears to have. been advanced that sec. 38 of the
G
Motor Vehicles Act obliged every transport vehicle, which expression
included contract carriages like mini buses, to carry a certificate of
fitness .and therefore, Condition No. 18 was superfluous and
derogated from the requirement of ~ec. 38. This argument was not
accepted by the court, who observed.
H
"The unreported ruling in Civil Writ No. 7317 ~f
1975 interprets s. 38 of the Act and the non-issuance of
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i983} 3 s.c.R..
the fitness certificate because the model was not recent
A enough. May be the vehicle, regardless of the year of its •
make, may be fit and the refusal to certify fitness merely
because it is old may not always be right. But we see no
conflict between a vehicle being fit to ride and the condi-
.tion, as an additional requirement and safety factor, in the
shape of the·year of the model. This is an extra measure,
B a further insurance against machine failure and cannot
contradict the 'fitness'. provision".

The vires of Condition No. 18 is once again challenged in these
writ petitions. The grounds of challenge, however, are most insubs-
c tantial. It was said that there was no such condition in the case of
omnibuses and therefore, there was an infringement of Art." 14 of the
Constitution·. It is incorrect to say that there is no such condition
in the case of omnibuses: In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit
filed in a Writ Petition Nos. 18-21 of 1981, it is stated that in.the
case of omnibuses, there is a condition that the vehicle should be
D replaced on the expiry of five years from the date of registration.
Further omnibuses and mini buses constitute different classes and are
not comparable. Another submission was that condition No. 18 is
impossible of fulfilment since one of the manufacturers of chassis of
mini buses (Telco) is no longer manufacturing such chassis. This is
E denied in the counter-affidavit and we presume there are other
manufacturers in the country, who make or produce the required
chassis. In any case, that is a situation which can be remedied by
the transport authorities. The petitioners can always pursue the
remedies given to them under the Motor Vehicles Act by way of
appeal and revision. We fail to see any infringemen! of any consti·
I' tutional right. Another submission was that the authority competent
to impose the condition, was not the Regional Transport Authority,
but the competent authority under sec 4 of the Utter Pradesh Motor.
Vehicles .(Special Provisions) Act. We have already referred to
Subhash Chander's case where it has been held that the source of
power for imposing condition No I 8 is sec. 51 (2) (x) of the Motor
G
Vehicles Act. Under sec. 51 (2) (x), the authority empowered to
impose the condition is the Regional Transport Authority. Section
· 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act deals
with the authorisation of use o~ private mini buses as stage· carriages
within specified limits covered by an approved scheme ·and has · )._
H
nothing whatever to do with the imposition of conditions on mini
buse·s playing as co~tract carriages. It was snggested that the real
s.R. BHATIA v. u.P. STATE (Chlnnappa RedJy, J.) 599
object of Condition No. 13 is not the safety of the passengers as
thought in Subhash Chander's case, but to eliminate mini buses from A
the field. There is no basis at all for this rubmission. As we said,
there is no substance in any one of these submissions advanced by
the petitioners. All the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed with
costs.
B
P.B.R. Petitions disinissed.

•