1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Vikram College of Engineering, Rep.by its Chairman MR.MK.Srinivasan, Sreenivasa Gardens, madurai Sivagangai Road, Enathi 630 561 Sivagangai District. ... 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. 3.The Road Transport Officer, Sivagangai. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records 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.D.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, AGP O R D E R Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for respondents. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2.It is claimed by the petitioner that there are 1600 students studying in their College and out of total number of students, majority of them are coming from remote villages and since the transport facilities are not available, their College provides transport buses and vans for transporting the students from their place of residence to College. It is stated that the petitioner College is presently plying 23 buses and 4 vans. 3. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.563, Home (Transport-V) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Department, dated 10.06.2010 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 and this will cause hardship to the students, teachers and non- teaching staff as the running time would substantially increase and the petitioner's College operate the buses and vans only for the sake of the student community coming from remote places. 4.This Court in a similar circumstances dispose of a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.22121 of 2010, dated 08.11.2010 and passed the following order: "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 relevance 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 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 10.06.2010, 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 09.06.1989. 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." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5.In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to insist on fixing of speed governor as per the notification issued by the State Government. However, the petitioner shall adhere and maintain the speed limit as prescribed under the Central Government notification, dated 09.06.1989. 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. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Transport – V) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.The Road Transport Officer, Sivagangai. +1cc to Mr.D.Saravanan, Advocate, Sr.No.11477 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No.11748 W.P.(MD)No.656 of 2011 04.03.2011 nbj SMA/15.3.2011/6C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/