Judgment:
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a senior citizen whose son died in the year 1996 at the age of 20 years in a rood accident at Bangalore. It is stated that after the death of his son in the road accident, the petitioner has been devoting considerable time and effort in espousing public causes relating to road safety, vehicular traffic, traffic discipline and other relevant issues. The petitioner claims that he has filed this writ petition to espouse the public cause relating to road safety and excessive speeding by commercial vehicles within and outside the city limits in the State of Karnataka.
2. The immediate provocation for filing the writ petition was Annexure-J Notification dated 29.06.2007 issued by the Government of Karnataka extending the time to fit the vehicles with Speed Governors and specifying that fitting of Speed Governors shall be mandatory only from 01.01.2008. The writ petition was filed challenging Annexure-J Notification and seeking a direction to the respondents to implement Annexure-B Notification dated 28.03.2005 issued by the Government of Karnataka specifying the transport vehicles which shall be fitted by the operator with Speed Governors. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Karnataka issued Annexure-M Notification dated 22.01.2008 by which the time to fix Speed Governors to all types of vehicles already registered was extended until further notification. Therefore, the writ petition was amended to include a prayer for quashing Annexure-M Notification also.
3. By an interim order dated 12.02.2008, the operation of Annexure-J and M Notifications was stayed by this Court until further orders. Against the said order dated 12.02.2008, the 4th respondent Mysore Rasthe Sarige Saraku Saganike Malikara Sangha filed SLP (Civil) No. 5047 of 2008 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 10.03.2008 disposed of the Special Leave Petition requesting the High Court to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest and staying the interim order dated 12.022008 till the disposal of the writ petition.
4. In the meanwhile, one Sri Kaloor Joseph from Kerala filed I.A. No. 6 of 2008 praying that he may be impleaded as additional 7th respondent in the writ petition. Though the prayer for impleading the applicant as respondent in the writ petition was rejected, it was ordered that he also would be heard in the writ petition.
5. Arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents and Sri Kaloor Joseph were heard and the judgment was reserved.
6. It is necessary to state the facts and circumstances which led to the issuance of the impugned notifications. According to Section 110(1)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Central Government is competent to make Rules regarding Speed Governors. According to Rule 118(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, on and from the commencement of the said Rule, such transport vehicles as may be notified by the State Governments in the Official Gazette shall be fitted by the operator of such transport vehicle with a Speed Governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the standard AIS:018 as amended from time to time specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards in such manner that the Speed Governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered without the seal being broken. According to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 118, the Speed Governor of every transport vehicle shall be so set that the vehicle is incapable of being driven at a speed in excess of the maximum pre-set speed of the vehicle except down an incline. Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 came into force on 01.07.1993.
7. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Government of Karnataka issued Annexure-B Notification dated 28.03.2005 specifying the transport vehicles which shall be fitted by the operator with a Speed Governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the standard AIS:018 as amended from time to time. The categories of transport vehicles covered by Annexure-B Notification are:
(a) Stage Carriages
(b) Contract carriages with seating capacity exceeding twelve (excluding driver), other than-
(i) Vehicles covered by permits issued under Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988;
(ii) Vehicles covered by an Authorisation Certificate issued under Rule 5 of Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Transport Operators) Rules 1993;
(c) Maxi Cabs; and
(d) Educational Institutional Buses;
(e) Goods vehicles with GVW exceeding 3000 kilograms.
According to Annexure-B Notification, no new vehicle of the categories mentioned in the Notification shall be registered with effect from 01.06.2005 unless it is fitted with Speed Governors in accordance with the Notification. Vehicles with GVW exceeding 3000 Kgs. were given twelve months and the other vehicles mentioned in the notification were given six months from the date of publication of the Notification, for fitting the Speed Governors.
8. Later Government of Karnataka issued Annexure-E Notification dated 29.11.2006 to grant farther time for fitting the Speed Governors. According to Annexure-E Notification dated 29.11.2006, fitting of Speed Governors to any Maxi Cabs, School Vehicles, Private Owned vehicles and Private Majulu vehicles shall be mandatory for registration from 01.12.2006. For registration of contract vehicles, vehicles that have All India Permit and any goods vehicle which weighs more than 3000 Kgs., fitting of Speed Governors was made mandatory from 1.5.2007. With effect from 01.05.2007, it was mandatory for already registered vehicles to be fitted with Speed Governors for renewal of the fitness certificate. It was also specified that all the already registered vehicles should be fitted with Speed Governors during the period of twelve months form 01.05.2007 to 30.04.2008.
9. Thereafter, Annexure-F Notification dated 07.05.2007 was issued by the Government of Karnataka, but it was cancelled on the next day as per Annexure-G Notification dated 08.05.2007.
10. According to Annexure-G Notification dated 08.05.2007, the date 01.05.2007 mentioned in Annexure-B notification was changed as 01.07.2007. In other words, with effect from 1.7.2007, fitting of Speed Governors was mandatory for registration in the case of contract vehicles, vehicles that have AH India Permit and goods vehicle that weighs more than 3000 Kgs. In respect of vehicles already registered, fitting of Speed Governors was mandatory for renewal of the fitness certificate with effect from 01.07.2007. The effect of Annexure-G Notification was that the vehicles already registered should be fitted with Speed Governors at the time of renewal of the fitness certificate during the period from 01.07.2007 to 30.06.2008.
11. On 1.6.2007 the Government of Karnataka issued Annexure-H Notification amending Annexure-B Notification to the extent of excluding Three wheelers (Autorickshaws) from the purview of Annexure-B Notification and granting 12 months to fit the speed governors to all goods vehicles irrespective of the GVW. Annexure-H Notification also extended the application of Annexure-B notification to Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vehicles and the vehicles from other States (excluding Three Wheelers).
12. Government of Karnataka issued yet another Notification dated 29.06.2007 (Annexure-J) granting further time for fitting Speed Governors. As per Annexure-J Notification the Speed Governors were made mandatory only from 01.01.2008.
13. Annexure-J Notification provoked the petitioner to file this writ petition in public interest Apart from praying to quash Annexure-J Notification dated 29.06.2007, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to implement Annexure-B Notification dated 28.03,2005. The writ petition was admitted on 06.07.2007 and notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents were directed to file an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which and the reasons for which Annexure-J Notification was issued. The respondents filed an affidavit in compliance with the order dated 06.07.2007. After considering the averments in the writ petition and the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, an interim order was passed on 17.07.2007 staying the operation of Annexure-J Notification dated 29.06.2007 in respect of the new vehicles yet to be registered. The effect of the interim order dated 17.07.2007 was that the extension of time granted in respect of new vehicles till 01.01.2008 stood stayed, but the extension of time granted in respect of the vehicles already registered was not interfered with.
14. While matters stood like this, the Government of Karnataka issued Annexure-M Notification dated 22.01.2008. As per Annexure-M Notification dated 22.01.2008, the time to fix Speed Governors to all types of vehicles already registered has been extended until further Notification. Promptly, the petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge Annexure-M Notification and filed I.A. No. 3 of 2008 for stay of Annexure-M Notification. The operation of Annexure-J and M was stayed by this Court on 12.02.2008. But the said stay order stands stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The chronology of events mentioned above indicates that the Government of Karnataka has been dragging its feet in implementing the provisions contained in Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules providing for speed governors in certain categories of vehicles. Till 31.05.2002, the power to notify the categories of transport vehicles under Rule 118 was vested in the Central Government With effect from 31.05.2002 the power was conferred on the State Governments. But Annexure-B Notification was issued by the Government of Karnataka only on 28.03.2005. It would appear that the Government of Karnataka was subjected to pressure again and again by the operators of vehicles to extend the time for fitting the Speed Governors. We can understand the Government showing indulgence and granting time for practical reasons like the difficulty to fix Speed Governors in all the transport vehicles all of a sudden. But Annexure-B Notification was issued on 28.03.2005 i.e. about 12 years after Rule 118 came into force. Even after three years of issuing Annexure-B Notification, the operators of the vehicles do not want to fit Speed Governors in their vehicles. The object of fitting Speed Governors is to strictly enforce the speed limits imposed under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act The attitude of the operators reflects their lack of concern for the safety and the lives of the passengers and the public. None of the respondents has advanced any valid legal contention against the statutory provisions or against the requirement of fitting Speed Governors. The main thrust of then-argument is the alleged non-availability of Speed Governors and the financial burden in fitting Speed Governors. There is no factual basis for the allegation that sufficient number of Speed Governors are not available in the market Of course there will be some financial burden for fitting Speed Governors. But it cannot be a valid ground to indefinitely postpone the enforcement of a statutory provision incorporated with the object of protecting the lives of passengers and public. The private interest of the operators should yield to the public interest in ensuring public safety. There must be an end to the extensions of time to fit Speed Governors. In the decision reported in (2006)12 SCC 320 Rajasekharan G. and Anr. v. Kaloor Joseph the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the direction of the High Court of Kerala to fit Speed Governors on vehicles and granted time only up to 30.09.2005 for fitting Speed Governors. Hence the Government of Karnataka should not have buckled under pressure from the vehicle operators again and again or yielded to the threat of strike by the vehicle operators, discarding the public safety. In our view, the Government has gone too far in issuing the impugned notifications. Annexure-M Notification has been issued even without specifying any outer limit The impugned decisions of the Government to extend the time is illegal and unreasonable and is against the spirit of the statutory provisions and the public interest There is no factual basis for the contention of the additional respondents that sufficient number of Speed Governors are not available in the market. Even according to the learned Advocate General, the Government of Karnataka has approved the Speed Governors manufactured by 8 companies. Moreover, the implementation of the rule has been in a phased manner. Even at per Annexure-G Notification, the vehicles already registered need be fitted with Speed Governors only when they seek renewal of the Fitness Certificate during the period of 12 months from 1.7.2007 to 30.6.2008.
16. We arc aware that there will be some initial difficulties for the operators of the vehicles. This could have been avoided if they had not sought extension of time again and again and had co-operated with the gradual implementation of the statutory requirement. Every citizen has a duty to put up with such difficulties and to co-operate for a noble cause in public interest.
17. We do not find any justification for the attitude of the Central Government and the State Government in delaying the implementation and enforcement of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which had come into force on 01.07.1993.
18. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors. : (1997)8SCC770 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the aspect relating to proper management and control of the traffic in the National Capital Region (NCR) and the National Capital Territory (NCT), Delhi to ensure the maximum possible safeguards which are necessary for public safety. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
6. Chapter IV deals with the registration of motor vehicles wherein Section 39 prescribes the necessity for registration. It says that unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot be driven in any public place. The responsibility to ensure that such a vehicle is not driven is not merely on the person driving the vehicle but also on the owner of the vehicle. Section 45 permits refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration inter aha on the ground that the vehicle is mechanically defective or foils to comply with the requirements of the Act or the rules made thereunder. It is obvious that the vehicle must be roadworthy in the sense that there is no mechanical defect therein to permit it being used as a motor vehicle. The necessity of complying with all the requirements makes it clear that any requirement which is specified under the Act or by the rules, has to be fully complied with and such a requirement would include the requirement of a specified category of motor vehicles being fitted with speed governors or such other devices as may be prescribed by law. Section 53 permits suspension of registration by the registering authority or other prescribed authority if it has reason to believe that any motor vehicle is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder. It is significant that this power to suspend the registration is available to the authority even if the condition of the motor vehicle is found to be such that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, irrespective of whether that is a specific requirement of the Act or the rules. The conferment of this power is for the obvious reason that a motor vehicle which is considered to be unsafe or which poses a danger to the public in a public place, if driven, should not be permitted to ply at a public place since the paramount need is public safely. It is, therefore, clear that even if speed governors are not prescribed for a particular class of motor vehicles by any requirement of the Act or the rules made thereunder, it is permissible for the authority concerned to require the fitting of the speed governors in such motor vehicles for the purpose of ensuring that there is no danger to the public by the use of such a motor vehicle in a public place. The power under Section 53 to this extent is wider. Section 53 read with Section 45 leaves no doubt about the amplitude of power of the authorities concerned whose duty it is to control and regulate the traffic in public places. The basic test to be applied by them for exercise of this power is the need to ensure that there is no danger to the public by use of any motor vehicle in a public place.
7. It is indisputable that heavy and medium vehicles as well as light goods vehicles are in a class by themselves insofar as their potential to imperil public safety is concerned. There is, therefore, immediate need to take measures such as installation of speed-control devices and ensuring that such vehicles are driven by authorised persons. Such measures, designed to further public safety, would undoubtedly be covered by the aforementioned provisions.
19. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture has submitted its Report on the Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill, 2007 on 28.04.2008. In paragraph 20.3 of the Report, the Committee has welcomed the proposed amendment to Section 111 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to confer specific power on the Central Government to make rules regarding installation of Speed Governors in transport vehicles. According to the Committee, the installation of Speed Governors in transport vehicles is an important safety requirement The Committee has expressed the view that the requirement regarding installation of Speed Governors should be implemented systematically and the violators of the provision should he punished heavily, as over-speeding is one of the main causes for the rising number of accidents on the roads.
20. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that there was no justification for issuing the impugned Notifications Annexure-J and M. By issuing the said Notifications, the Government of Karnataka has ignored the object and spirit of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and also the larger public interest involved. Therefore, Annexure-J Notification dated 29.06.2007 and Annexure-M-Notification dated 22.01.2008 are quashed. The respondents-1 and 2 are directed to strictly implement Annexure-B Notification dated 28.03.2005 subject to the modifications contained in Annexure-H Notification dated 01.06.2007.
21. Notwithstanding the quashing of Annexure-J and M Notifications, we are of the view that in order to avoid hardship to the operators of the vehicles, the vehicles already registered should be given some more time to fit Speed Governors as a last and final extension of time. Hence respondents-1 and 2 are directed to grant a further period of three months from today, for fitting the Speed Governors in the vehicles already registered. But new vehicles covered by Annexure-B Notification as modified by Annexure-H Notification, shall not be registered unless they are fitted with Speed Governors.
22. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.