- The Hon&rsquoble Supreme Court (SC or Court),in the case of Regional Transport Authority v Shaju, set aside thejudgment passed by the Kerala High Court (HC) by holding that Rule 174 (2) (c) is intra vires the provisions of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 (Rules) and also Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- The Court held that State Road Transport Authority (RTA) can reject application for replacement of the vehicle if the proposed vehicle is older than the vehicle under the existing permit.
- Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits replacement of the vehicle covered under an existing transport permit by another vehicle of the same nature.
- The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed appeal file by the RTA by holding that Rule174(2)(c) of goes beyond the provisions of the Act and are to held to be inoperative and directed the RTA to consider the application only on the ground of road-worthiness without reference to the model of the vehicle.
- Aggrieved the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the SC to consider whether Rule 174(2)(c) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is ultravires the provisions of the Act and whether Rule 174(2)(c) is contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act.
- SC Bench noted that the purpose and object of mandating replacement by a vehicle of the same nature is to ensure that the scrutiny and conditions imposed at the time of granting the vehicle continue even during the subsistence of the permit.
- The Court observed that the rules made by the State Government with regards to vehicle replacement does not impinge upon the powers of the Central Government regarding fixing the age or fitness of the vehicle conferred upon it under Sections 56 and 59 in Chapter IV of the Act.
- The Court further held that there is no prohibition on the vehicle unapproved by the RTA being used as a transport vehicle within the State as it may continue to be fit and within the age limit prescribed by the Central Government. Therigour of Rule 174 (2) (c) is only in the context of a subsisting transport permit and not as a condition for transport vehicles.
- On the interpretation of the phrase &lsquosame nature&rsquo by the HC, the Court was of the view that the HC&rsquos interpretation is not a correct way to read the provision. The Court said that the interpretation of such expressions must be kept open ended to enable courts to subserve the needs of changing circumstances.
- The Court held that the RTA can exercise express or implied discretion wherever necessary in order to exercise its power reasonably basis the facts and circumstances of the case. Only in cases where the discretion is exercisebased on unreasonable and arbitrary principles, such a decision would be vulnerable and subject to correction in appeal and a further review.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
