Manju Sajeev vs The State Transport Authority
2025 Latest Caselaw 3759 Ker

Kerala High Court

Manju Sajeev vs The State Transport Authority on 7 February, 2025

Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

                                                       2025:KER:11334
WA 278/2023
                                     1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                     &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
 FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
                          WA NO. 278 OF 2023
         AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT       DATED   23.12.2022   IN   WP(C)
NO.26512 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

     1        MANJU SAJEEV
              AGED 40 YEARS
              W/O. SAJEEV, PARTNER, ITIHAS TOURS AND TRAVELS,
              CALICUT BYEPASS ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

     2        BOBY GEORGE
              AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O. ABRAHAM, THEVADIYIL, PUTHUPPADY, KOZHIKODE,
              PIN - 686673

     3        SUJITH.K.SUDHAKARAN
              AGED 38 YEARS
              S/O. SUDHAKARAN, KURIYAKKOT HOUSE, AMBAKKAD,
              PUZHAKKAL. THRISSUR, PIN - 680553


              BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT
              COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
              695039
                                                           2025:KER:11334
WA 278/2023
                                       2

     2          THE STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
                STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001,

     3          THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
                TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, VAZHUTHACAUD,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 036, PIN - 695036

     4          THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
                REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, (SECRETARY, REGIONAL
                TRANSPORT AUTHORITY), KENATHUPARAMBU,
                KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

     5          THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, (SECRETARY, REGIONAL
                TRANSPORT AUTHORITY), GROUND FLOOR, CIVIL
                STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

     6          THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, (SECRETARY, REGIONAL
                TRANSPORT AUTHORITY), CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
                THRISSUR, PIN - 686003

     7          K.A SEBASTIAN
                S/O K.A ANTONY,KUTTIKAT HOUSE,CHULLICKAL KOCHI-
                682002, PRESIDENT, CONTRACT CARRIAGE OPERATORS
                FEDERATION, REG. NP.R847/2004, STATUS ROAD,
                KOCHI, PIN - 686002
                (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED IN THE WP(C))


OTHER PRESENT:

                SR GP SRI.VK SHAMSUDHEEN


         THIS    WRIT    APPEAL   HAVING     BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD    ON
07.02.2025,        THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        2025:KER:11334
WA 278/2023
                                    3

                           JUDGMENT

Easwaran S., J.

This intra-court appeal arises out of the dismissal of

WP(C)No.26512/2022 by judgment dated 23.12.2022. We are called

upon to consider whether the State Transport Authority constituted

under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the State of Kerala has the

power to prescribe uniform colour code to contract carriages.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are as

follows:

The petitioners are the registered owners of heavy motor passenger

vehicles classified as contract carriages. The vehicles are registered

under the provisions of Chapter-IV of the Motor Vehicles Act with

the registering authorities, who are arrayed as respondents 4 to 6 in

the writ petition. The petitioners hold valid regular permits for five

years. During 2020, the State Transport Authority decided to

implement uniform colour code to all contract carriages plying in the

State with effect from 1.3.2020. The colour code prescribed is :

"the contract carriage vehicle shall be painted in white colour (hex colour value= #ffffff) with a violet (hex Colour value= #5100a3) ribbon of 10 centimeters width with a metallic gold (hex colour value=#eecc5d) ribbon of 3 centimeters width above 2025:KER:11334

the violet ribbon (with a gap of 1 cm) at the centre of the exterior of the side body. The name if any may be painted at the top of the front side of the vehicle with a normal font with size not more than 12 inch in white colour"

Ext.P3 proceedings was questioned initially by the

appellants/petitioners on the ground that the same was issued

without jurisdiction since the meeting of the authority was convened

without the requisite quorum. WP(C) No.6680/2020, filed by the

appellants was allowed by the Single Bench by Ext.P4 judgment and

the State Transport Authority was directed to reconsider the issue.

The question of the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority to

issue such directions was however left open. Thereafter, the 1st

respondent by Ext.P5 decided to implement the uniform colour code.

Challenging Ext.P5, the petitioners approached this Court in the

present writ petition. The learned Single Judge, who considered the

writ petition, accepted the statement made across the bar by the

learned Government Pleader that the notification regarding

implementation of uniform colour code has been upheld by this Court

and, hence, rejected the claim of the petitioners and dismissed the

writ petition.

2025:KER:11334

3. It is contended before us by the appellants that the

statement made across the bar by the learned Government Pleader

was, in fact, concerning the stage carriage for which the

petitioners/writ appellants have no grievance at all. Insofar as the

appellants are concerned, they are the holders of permits for

contract carriages, which stands on a different footing. The primary

challenge to the proceedings initiated by the State Transport

Authority is on the ground that the State Transport Authority cannot

decide on the uniform colour code without any enabling provision

either under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under

the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

4. Heard Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellants/petitioners, and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen,

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

State.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants,

Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, questioned Ext.P5 on the ground that the

State Transport Authority does not have jurisdiction to issue such

direction in the absence of any statutory backing. Reliance is placed

on Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by which the power

of the Regional Transport Authority specifying the conditions for 2025:KER:11334

plying the stage carriages, including the uniform colour is provided.

However, it is contended that insofar as the contract carriages are

concerned, the said power is conspicuously absent under Section 74

of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader

appearing on behalf of the State Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, supported

the findings of the State Transport Authority and contended that it

is in the larger public interest that the State Transport Authority has

issued the directions.

7. We have considered the rival submissions raised across

the bar, and are of the view that the contention of the appellants

cannot be countenanced for reasons more than one.

8. Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the

conditions relating to the grant of permit for contract carriages.

Section 74 reads as under:

"74. Grant of contract carriage permit :- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), a regional transport authority may, on an application made to it under section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit :

Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application.

2025:KER:11334

(2) 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:-

(i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes;

(ii) that except in accordance with specified conditions, no contract of hiring, other than an extension or modification of a subsisting contract, may be entered into outside the specified area;

(iii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicle, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons;

(iv) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in any contract carriage in addition to, or to the exclusion of, passengers;

(v) that, in the case of motorcabs, specified fares or rates of fares shall be charged and a copy of the fare table shall be exhibited on the vehicle;

(vi) that, in the case of vehicles other than motorcabs, specified rates of hiring not exceeding specified maximum shall be charged;

(vii) that, in the case of motorcabs, a specified weight of passengers', luggage shall be carried free of charge, and that the charge, if any, for any luggage in excess thereof shall be at a specified rate;

(viii) that, in the case of motorcabs, a taximeter 2025:KER:11334

shall be fitted and maintained in proper working order, if prescribed;

(ix) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month,-

(a) vary the conditions of the permit

(b) attach to the permit further conditions;

(x) that the conditions of permit shall not be departed from save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority;

(xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles;

(xii) that, except in the circumstances of exceptional nature, the plying of the vehicle or carrying of the passengers shall not be refused;

                  (xiii)    any    other    conditions    which     may   be
              prescribed:

Provided that the Regional Transport Authority may in the interests of last mile connectivity waive any such condition in respect of any such types of vehicles as may be specified by the Central Government.

(3)(a) The State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified 2025:KER:11334

type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs.

(b) Where the number of contract carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for the grant of permit in respect of any such contract carriage, have regard to the following matters, namely,-

(i) financial stability of the applicant;

(ii) satisfactory performance as a contract carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of contract carriages ; and

(iii) such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government:

Provided that, other conditions being equal, preference shall be given to applications for permits from

-

(i) the India Tourism Development Corporation ;

(ii) State Tourism Development Corporation ;

(iii) State Tourism Departments ;

(iv) State Transport undertakings ;

(v) Co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment for the time being in force ;

(vi) Ex-servicemen;

(vii) self-help groups."

2025:KER:11334

On a close reading of Section 74, we are of the view that the Regional

Transport Authority itself could specify the conditions under which

a contract carriage has to ply. Sub-Section (2) of Section 74 provides

that the Regional Transport Authority can prescribe any other

condition for grant of permit to a stage carriage which would include

the uniform colour code. If the Regional Transport Authority can

specify the conditions for issuance of permit, the question, is

whether the State Transport Authority could direct the Regional

Transport Authority to adopt a uniform colour code. In order to

appreciate this question, it is necessary for us to consider the extent

of power of the Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988.

9. Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the

power of the State Government to constitute a State Transport

Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions

specified under sub-Section (3) thereof. Turning to sub-Section (3),

we find that the State Transport Authority has the power to

coordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional

Transport Authorities, if any, of the State. Therefore, if the Regional

Transport Authority has the power to prescribe any condition while 2025:KER:11334

granting a permit to a contract carriage, which includes the colour

specifications, we see no reason as to why the State Transport

Authority cannot exercise the said power and issue a direction to the

Regional Transport Authority to follow a uniform pattern while

granting permits under Section 74.

10. It is next contended that even if it is assumed that

prescription of uniform colour code is part of the policy of the State

Government, such prescription has to fail in the absence of any

power under the corresponding rule. However, we are afraid that

the contention cannot be countenanced for reasons more than one.

11. The powers of the State Government to frame rules are

contained under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Clause

(xviii) of sub-Section (2) of Section 96 reads as under:

"96. Powers of State Government to make rules for the purposes of this Chapter:-

xxx xxx xxx (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules under this section may be made with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely :-

xxx xxx xxx (xviii) regulating the painting or marking of transport vehicles and the display of advertising matter thereon, and in particular prohibiting the painting or marking of 2025:KER:11334

transport vehicles in such colour or manner as to induce any person to believe that the vehicle is used for the transport of mails."

Therefore, it is clear that the Central Government has clearly

spelt out the parameters for State Government to frame rules. We

must note that in exercise of the said power, the State

Government has framed the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules provides that the

painting work or varnish of every transport vehicle shall be made

in accordance with the specification, if any, laid down by the State

or the Transport Authority. Rule 264 reads as under:

"264. Paintwork or varnish:- The paintwork or varnish of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition and in accordance with the specifications, if any, laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authority."

A reading of Section 96(2)(xviii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read

with Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 leads to an

irresistible conclusion that Ext.P5 proceedings issued by the State

Transport Authority is in exercise of its powers under Rule 264 of

the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Therefore, we hold that the

State Transport Authority has the power to prescribe the uniform 2025:KER:11334

colour code for the contract carriages and thus Ext.P5 proceedings

are sustained.

12. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the

appellants that they have a right to ply the contract carriages under

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the right

cannot be infringed without recourse to any power traceable under

the Act or the Rules. The said contention, however, has to fail for the

obvious reason that we have already found that the power to issue

the proceedings in the nature of Ext.P5 is clearly traceable to Rule

264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Even if we are to

recognise the right of the appellants/petitioners to ply contract

carriages under Article 19(1)(g), the said right is not an unqualified

right. The right under Article 19(1)(g) is always subject to restriction

under Article 19(6), which provides the power of the State to make

any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred under Article

19(1)(g).

13. In Kasaragod District Bus Owners' Association v.

Regional Transport Authority [2014 (4) KLT 709], a Single Bench of

this Court held that the direction issued by the Regional Transport

Authority to implement a uniform colour to all stage carriages is 2025:KER:11334

traceable to Rule 264 and the State Transport Authority can issue

the directions in the larger public interest as well.

14. In Sindhu JoJo v. Joint Regional Transport Officer [2018

(4) KLT 1123], this question again came up before a learned Single

Judge of this Court, who considered the issue regarding the

fundamental right of the owners of the stage carriages to operate. It

was held that insistence of fitness certificate places reasonable

restriction under sub-Article (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of

India and the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

is inferior and subordinate and has to give way to the paramount

consideration of the public safety, security and convenience of the

passengers and other relevant considerations of the Motor Vehicles

Act and the Rules made thereunder.

15. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the

principles laid down in Kasaragod District Bus Owners' Association

(supra) and Sindhu Jojo (supra) and are of the view that the

principles laid down therein are perfectly in consonance with the

statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

16. As an upshot of these discussions, we are of the

considered view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified 2025:KER:11334

in dismissing the writ petition and we see no reason to interfere in

the view taken by the learned Single Judge albeit on a different

reasoning.

Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Cost made easy.

Sd/-

DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S., JUDGE

jg