2012 (9) TMI 1234 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds auto rickshaw permit conditions as valid under Motor Vehicles Act

Sitaram Mehto & Ors, Pragatisheel Auto Rickshaw Drivers Union (Regd.) & Ors., Om Singh & Ors., Om Prakash Tiwari & Ors. Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, The Secretary Transport, Gnctd & Ors, Transport Department of Delhi

The court dismissed the petitions challenging the revised conditions for auto rickshaw permits, finding them not arbitrary or whimsical. The court held ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Paras No. 24 and 26 of Public Notice No. F23(479)/Tpt/OPS/2010/66/185 dated 17.03.2011.2. Competence and powers of the State Transport Authority (STA) u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. Financial burden on auto rickshaw drivers/owners due to the revised conditions.4. Whether the revised conditions are arbitrary, whimsical, or discriminatory.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Paras No. 24 and 26 of Public NoticeThe challenge in all these petitions is to Paras No. 24 and 26 of the Public Notice dated 17.03.2011, issued by the GNCTD, Auto Rickshaw Unit, Transport Department, Delhi, prescribing revised terms and conditions for the grant of permits for auto rickshaws. The impugned conditions require auto rickshaws to be fitted with GPS/GPRS devices, two-way communication devices, printers for printing receipts, and other equipment authorized by DIMTS. The petitioners argue that these conditions are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, being discriminatory and arbitrary.Issue 2: Competence and Powers of STA u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The petitioners contend that the imposition of the conditions is beyond the competence and powers of the respondent STA as outlined in the Act. They argue that Section 74(2) of the Act does not empower the STA to prescribe the installation of GPS/GPRS devices. The court, however, finds that the STA is empowered to attach conditions to the permit under Section 74(2) of the Act, and the conditions mentioned therein are subject to any Rule. The court holds that the power to impose such conditions can also be restricted by the Rule but does not suggest that for imposing any conditions, the rule-making power has to be invoked.Issue 3: Financial Burden on Auto Rickshaw Drivers/OwnersThe petitioners argue that the amount demanded for the installation of GPS/GPRS devices is much more than the price available in the retail market and that the direction for collection of 50 paise per kilometer is beyond the entitlement of the respondent STA. The court finds that the respondents have demonstrated that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- imposed for installation would be recovered within a month from the additional charge of 50 paise per kilometer. The court also notes that the respondent STA has reduced the amount to Rs. 7,500/-, thus no financial burden is placed on the petitioners.Issue 4: Whether the Revised Conditions are Arbitrary, Whimsical, or DiscriminatoryThe petitioners argue that the conditions are without any reason and whimsical, pointing out that no such provisions have been made for taxis or buses. The court holds that the revised conditions cannot be said to be arbitrary or whimsical. The court finds that the conditions are in the interest of security and public safety, and the requirement for GPS/GPRS and printing devices is in consonance with global practices. The court also notes that the conditions imposed are not in excess of or in abuse of the powers conferred on the STA.Conclusion:The court dismisses the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised against the revised conditions for the grant of permits for auto rickshaws. The court holds that the conditions are neither arbitrary nor whimsical and are within the powers of the STA u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No order as to costs.