IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 08.11.2010 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN W.P.No.22121 of 2010 and MP.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 JAYAM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT.R.PARVATHI NALLANUR VILLAGE KONANGIHALLI POST DHARMAPURI-636 813. ...Petitioner -vs- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME (TRANSPORT-V) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT CHENNAI-9. 2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK CHENNAI-5. 3 THE ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER DHARMAPURI. ...Respondents. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Respondents relating to the order of the 1st Respondent in G.O.(Ms). No.563 Home (Transport-V) Department dated 10.06.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondents: Mr.R.Thirugnanam Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has sought for writ of certiorari to quash the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.(Ms).No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department dated 10.06.2010. 2. The petitioner herein is an educational institution offering Engineering course. There are 2474 students studying in Engineering College. The college is situated at the 18th k.m. in the Dharmapuri Hogennakal Falls Main Road. Most of the students come from remote villages. Due to lack of proper public transport facilities, the petitioner herein provides transport bus and mini vans for taking the students from their place of residence to the college. It is stated that presently the petitioner is plying 14 bus and 7 mini buses mainly to Salem, Omalaur, Marandahalli, Palacode, Pauparapatti, Krishnagiri, Kaveripattinam, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri, Harur, Kambainalur and Kadathur. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department dated 10.6.2010 with reference to compulsory fixation of speed governor in educational institutions' vehicles. Accordingly, under Sub-section (2) of 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the authorities have fixed the maximum speed limit at 50 k.m per hour. The petitioner states that if the speed governor limiting the speed to 50 k.m. per hour is installed, then the travelling time between Salem and Nallanur will be 2.15 hours, which would cause serious prejudice to the students community. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that fixing uniform speed limit within the city or the highway is arbitrary, unjust and illegal that most of the Engineering Colleges are situated outside the city/town limits and the educational institutions operate the bus only for the sake of the student community coming from various places. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the notification of the Central Government dated 9.6.1989 issued under Section 112(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing for the speed limit to be maintained by various types of vehicles serving for different purposes. As per proviso to Section 112(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the authority of the State Government has to necessarily go by the notification issued under Section 112(1), by the Central Government. Apart from that, the authority of the State Government is circumscribed by conditions which are stated in Section 112(2) of the Act as regards the satisfaction to be reached as to the necessity to restrict the speed in the interest of public safety or convenience or the nature of road or bridge. As far as the present case is concerned, admittedly, the petitioners' vehicles are light motor vehicles. Hence, even going by the notification issued by the Central Government, the petitioner is entitled to maintain speed at 65 km per hour. 4. On notice, the respondents filed counter, wherein, supporting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Government Order, the respondents contended that the maximum speed limit of vehicles owned by the educational institution is fixed at 50 kms per hour. The counter also refers to the order passed by this Court on 30.11.2009 in W.P.No.37128 of 2007, directing the State Government to take final decision and file a report before this Court. Hence, going by the notification of the Central Government dated 9.6.1989 in S.O.No. 425(E), the petitioner's vehicles were directed to have 50 kms per hour as its speed. Accordingly, the Government passed an order on 10.6.2010 in G.O.Ms.No.653, Home (Tr.V) Department, stating that speed governors shall be fitted in the vehicle run by the educational institutions and that the maximum speed limit has to be restricted to 50 kms per hour. It is further stated that taking into account the public safety, this Government order is passed. There are 629 educational institutions' vehicles operating in the Dharmapuri District. Considering the huge strength of educational institution vehicles, the speed restriction was imposed by the Government in public interest. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader placed before this Court a copy of the notification issued by the Central Government dated 9.6.1989 in S.O.No. 425 (E) in exercise of power under Section 112(1) of the Act, only to point out that the petitioner's vehicle is a light motor vehicle and a transport vehicle. In any event, since the notification takes note of the conditions specified under Section 112 (2) of the Act, there cannot be any two opinion on the merits of the Government Order and the notification was rightly made. 6. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. Before going into the rival contentions, the definition as to "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle" and "transport vehicle" needs to be considered, which are as follows:- (i) Section 2(17) defines "heavy passenger motor vehicle" to mean any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; (ii) Section 2(21) defines "light motor vehicle" which means a transport bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms; (iii) Section 2(24) defines "medium passenger motor vehicle", which means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or educational institution bus other than a motor cycle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle or heavy passenger motor vehicle; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv) Section 2(47) defines "transport vehicle" which means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. 8. Going by the definitions referred to above, the medium passenger motor vehicle is one which falls in between the heavy passenger motor vehicle weighing beyond 12000 kilograms and light motor vehicle not exceeding 7500 kilograms; thus the medium passenger motor vehicle is one that weighs between 7500 and 12000 kilograms and taking note of the other conditions as given under Section 2(24) of the Act, a public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational vehicle weighing between 7500 Kgs. to 12000 kgs. is a medium passenger motor vehicle. Section 2(11) of the Act defines "educational institution bus". 9. Section 112 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 prescribes the maximum speed at which each class of the motor vehicles can be driven. While Section 112(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to notify the maximum and the minimum speed at which any motor vehicle or class or description of motor vehicles could be driven in a public place. Sub section (2) of Section 112 of the Act gives the authority to the State Government to restrict the speed limit, maximum or minimum, for motor vehicles or any specified class or description of motor vehicle or motor vehicle to which a tractor is attached, either general or on a particular area or road or roads. The said power has to be exercised in the interest of public safety or convenience, because of the nature of any road or bridge. Under Section 112(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government may, by an appropriate order in the Official Gazette, as provided for under Section 116 of the Act, may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed or erected in any public place for the purpose of bringing to public notice any speed limits fixed under sub section (2) of Section 112 or any prohibitions or restrictions imposed under Section 115 or generally for the purpose of regulating motor vehicle traffic. The proviso states that no such notification would be necessary if the restriction is to remain in force for not more than one month. 10. As far as the present case is concerned, both sides agree that by reason of notification issued under Section 112(1) of the Act, the Central Government has fixed the speed limits in S.O.No.425(E) dated 9.6.1989, that Clause 1 alone is relevant to the case on hand. The said clause reads as under: " 112. Limits of speed. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum speed or below the minimum speed fixed for the vehicle under this Act or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by or under any other law for the time being in force: Provided that such maximum speed shall in no case exceed the maximum fixed for any motor vehicle or class or description of motor vehicles by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. " 11. It is seen from the certificate issued by the petitioner that gross vehicle weight in respect of vehicle owned by the petitioner is 8850 kgs. It is admitted by both sides that barring three buses owned by the petitioner, rest of them are all fitted with the equipment. However, given the fact that the Central Government had fixed the speed limit for medium or heavy passenger motor vehicle at 65 kms per hour, the petitioner's vehicle falling under medium passenger motor vehicle, it stands to reason that the maximum speed limit for the petitioner's vehicle would be 65 kms per hour. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner's vehicle is a light motor vehicle. It is also not denied that the sale certificate contains the gross weight of the vehicle owned by the petitioner. Thus going by the notification and the fact that the petitioner's vehicle is a medium passenger vehicle, it stands to reason that even applying the notification of the Central Government dated 9.6.1989, the maximum speed limit at which the educational institution bus could be driven, would be 65 kms per hour. It is seen from the additional typed set of papers filed by the respondents that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.37128 of 2007, an affidavit was filed by the Special Secretary to Government, wherein he referred to the Expert Committee constituted by the State to decide on the maximum speed limit as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, that considering the good network of road constructed in the recent years, they decided that the maximum speed limit should be raised beyond the existing speed limit. The Committee has therefore recommended that the matter should be taken up with the Government of India to enhance the maximum speed limit. Consequently, the Government of India was addressed for pursuing necessary action to enhance the existing speed limit of 65 km per hour for heavy and light motor vehicles so as to enable the Government to comply with Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on fitment of speed governor in all class of transport vehicles in the State. The affidavit further refers that the neighbouring States had deferred the issue on implementing the scheme of placing speed governors in the vehicles belonging to the educational institutions. Giving its serious thoughts on speed governor to be fitted on to the educational institution vehicles, the Government of Tamil Nadu has come to the conclusion that it may not be desirable to fit speed governors with the existing speed restrictions, besides it will be more appropriate if all the State Governments or at least the southern states take a uniform stand in this matter. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also stated in the affidavit that the State Government is coming up with a scheme for fitment of speed governors in a phased manner and accordingly, the present notification was issued. The notification refers to the following vehicles to be fitted with speed governors within six months. 1. Omni buses owned by Educational Institutions 2. Contract Carriage Omni buses used under contract with Educational Institutions. 3. Motor cab/ Tourist Taxi/ Maxi cab used to ferry students to and from Educational Institutions. 12. It may be noted that as far as the present notification is concerned, it makes no reference to the gross weight of the motor vehicle as a light motor vehicle or heavy motor vehicle. All that it refers to is an omni bus or motor cab/ tourist taxi/ maxi cab used by educational institutions. Having regard to the fact that the notification makes no reference to the light motor vehicle or to the medium motor vehicle, but refers only to omni bus, which, according to Section 2(29) of the Act, means any motor vehicle constructed or adopted to carry more than six persons, excluding the driver and "medium passenger motor vehicle" means any public service vehicle or educational institution bus, I do not think, by mere reference to omni bus, one can ignore the definition of medium passenger vehicle referred to under Section 2(24) of the Act. The emphasis made in the notification is the bus used by educational institution, which, according to Section 2(11) of the Act, "means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities" and an "omni bus" is defined under Section 2(29) of the Act as "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver". That being so, unless and until the notification identifies the description as in accordance with the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act and the notification satisfies the requisites under Section 112(2) of the Act, it is difficult to uphold the objection of the respondents. 13. On a reading of the views expressed in the affidavit filed by the State in W.P.No.37128 of 2007 and going by the notification issued by the Central Government, I do not find any ground to sustain the objection of the respondents herein and the relevancy to maintain speed at 50 kms per hour, has to go in tune with the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 112(1) of the Act, with reference to those class of vehicles only and with which, the petitioner's vehicle, admittedly, does not fall. 14. In the above circumstances, even assuming that the petitioner's vehicle falls under the definition of Contract Carriage https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Omni buses used under contract with Educational Institutions, going by the character of the vehicle as a medium passenger motor vehicle, the notification, as such, will not apply to have a speed governor fitted at 50 kms per hour. The notification issued by the State Government, which is impugned in this writ petition necessarily has to go along with the Central Government notification too for the purpose of implementation. 15. Consequently, instead of quashing the notification dated 10.6.2010, this Court holds that the State Government notification has to be read along with the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 112(1) of the Act, in which event, the question of fixing of speed governor at 50 kms per hour does not arise. The respondents are directed not to insist on fixing of speed governor as per the notification issued by the State Government. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall maintain the speed limit as prescribed under the Central Government notification dated 9.6.1989. If there is any violation on the part of the petitioner, it is always open to the respondents to take such action as the law permits. 16. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar bg/ To 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME (TRANSPORT-V) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. 2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-5. 3 THE ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER DHARMAPURI. +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 79750 +1cc to Mr.V.R.Appaswamee Advocate Sr 79737 GGK(CO) km/2.12. W.P.No. 22121 of 2010 and MP.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/