Special Leave Petition No 1262 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 19 2 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No 184 of 1975
section N Kaicker Mrs section Markendeya and section Markendeya for the Petitioners
The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J An order draped in relative brevity is sufficient since we are refusing leave to appeal although the issue raised is vires of a provision
After due fulfillment of the obligation for oral hearing we have considered the impact of two earlier decisions cited by Shri Kaicker sup 1025 posedly striking a note contrary to the judgment under attack but feel free why bound to dismiss the petition for special leave not merely because the High Court is right but because justice to the travelling public a lost cause on our made roads conscientises to that course
Tersely put the petitioner is the grantee of permits to ply minibuses as contract carriages and in the grant a condition has been fastened that the vehicle shall not be more than seven years old
Condition No 18 relating to Mini Buses Contract Carriage permits and the source of power section 51 2 x read thus That the vehicle covered by the permit shall be not more than four years old counted from the date of registration at any time during the validity of the permit
512 The Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit may subject to any rules that may be made under this Act attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions namely x any other conditions which may be prescribed
Section 512 x any other Four years  have been relaxed to seven years since September 23 1978 the beneficiaries being the bus owners and the potential victims being the unknown casualties who have no poor lobby  power
The State must remember that it has responsibilities not merely to mini bus owners but also to avoid the daily tragedies on the Indian high ways under the lethal wheels of these whirling carriages
Section 51 2 of the  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 walking on roads or even standing on margins
If the top killer road accident is to be awarded death sentence section 51 and like provisions must receive severe enforcement
In this spirit although backtracking from 4 year old models to 7 year old models the state imposed condition 18
This was challenged artfully but unsuccessfully before the High Court and is attacked before us as ultra vires section 512 of the Act
We will examine briefly the submission to reach the conclusion that mere lexical legalism cannot sterilise the sensible humanism writ large on section 512 x
If Indian life is not ultra vires Indian law every condition to save life and limb is intra vires such salvationary provision
This perspective of social justice simplifies the problem and upholds the High Court
Section 512 x authorises the impost of any condition of course having a nexus with the statutory purpose
It is undeniable that human safety is one such purpose
The State s neglect in this area of policing 1026 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 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 measures 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 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 notoriously neglected highways
We have no hesitation to hold from the point 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
Two decisions Masi Ullah vs State Tribunal Appellate1 and In re Ramesh Chandra Tewari etc2 were cited as striking a contrary note
The first deals with section 483 of the Act and prescription of the model or year of the make was held ultra vires because lexically read it was held that the expression specified description in section 483 did not cover according to dictionaries the year of manufacture of the vehicle
We extract Black s Law Dictionary on description  to show how the model of a vehicle is obviously a facet of its description Description  means 3 A delineation or account of a particular subject by the recital of its characteristic accidents and qualities
So dictionary versus dictionary leaves the matter at large apart from the plain function of the court to gather the meaning not under the dictatorship of dictionaries but guided by the statutory purpose without being deflected by logamachic exercises the mischief to be countered and the public interest to be advanced
We are clear that a later model is a better safeguard and more relevantly to the point the year of the make and the particulars of the model are part of the description
1027 The unreported ruling in Civil Writ No 7317 of 1975 interprets section 38 of the Act and the non issuance of the fitness certificate because the model was not recent 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 condition as an additional requirement and safety factor in the shape of the year of the model
This is an extra measure a further insurance against machine failure and cannot contradict the fitness  provision
More reasons are superogatory less discussion will leave the law obscure
We hold the ration of the impugned ruling to be right and refuse leave to appeal
SR Petition dismissed


Summary:
Dismissing the special leave petition the Court  HELD 1
Mere lexical legalism cannot sterilise the sensible humanism writ large on section 512x
If Indian life is not ultra vires Indian law every condition to save life and limb is intra vires such salvationary provision
1025G 2
Section 512 of the  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 walking on roads or even standing on margins
If the top killer road accident is to be awarded death sentence section 51 and like provisions must receive severe enforcement
In this spirit although backtracking from 4 year old models to 7 year old models the state imposed condition 18
Section 512 x authorises the impost of any condition of course having a nexus with the statutory purpose
Human safety is one such purpose
1025D F H 3
From the point of view of the human rights of road users the condition regarding the model of the permitted bus is within jurisdiction and not to prescribed such safety clauses is abdication of statutory duty
There is no conflict between a vehicle being fit to ride and the condition as an additional requirement and safety factor in the shape of the year and the model
This is an extra measure a further insurance against machine failure and cannot contradict the fitness  provision
1126D 1027A B