IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, KERALA
Writ Petition.(Civil).No…3 9 9 4 6......of 2016
Major.M.G.C.Nair………………………………………….…….…………..Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ........................................Respondent
S Y N O P S I S
Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court of India issued directions for the installation of speed governors in public transport vehicles. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 118 contemplated the installation of speed governors in heavy goods vehicle and passenger vehicles. Now the said rule is amended as per GSR 290(E), dated 15th April, 2015 making it mandatory for the installation of speed governors in all medium goods and medium passenger. Invoking the power given to the State Government for insisting speed governors on existing vehicles the Government of Kerala has issued Exhibit.P.3. But the Government of India exercising its powers under Sec. 110 (3) (a) has granted exemption from the said provisions till 31st January,2017 without any valid reasons. Therefore speed governors cannot be made mandatory. The result is that accidents are increasing causing deaths of many innocent. Every day in Kerala around eleven people die and 150 get injured in road accidents and if speed governor is installed at least some life could be saved.
Counsel for the Petitioner
P a g e | 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, KERALA [SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION] WRIT PETITION (CIVIL).No…3 9 9 4 6...of 2016 BETWEEN PETITIONER: Major M.G.C.Nair (Retired) , aged 80 years son of Late N.Govindan Nair, residing at Rajalakshmi Nivas, 129 BMRA, BalakrishnaMenon Road, Edapppally, Cochin-682024. AND RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport and High Ways, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Transport Bhawan,1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 2. State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Motor Vehicles Department, Thiruvananthapuram- 3. The Transport Commissioner, Transport Commissionerate, 2nd Floor, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud P.O. Thiruvananthapuram-695014. All process to the petitioner be served on his counsel M/s. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, T.S.HARIKUMAR, K.JAGADEESH, RAAJESH.S. SUBRAHMANIAN, Advocates, Sahasram Associates, Narayaneeyam Buildings, Chittoor Road, Cochin-682011. All process to the respondents be sent on their above addresses or on their advocates, if any engaged. WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Statement of Facts. The petitioner above named states as follows:-
1. The petitioner is a resident of Cochin Corporation. He has filed many public interest litigation before this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble
P a g e | 3
Supreme Court of India so as to protect the life of the people from many of the evils. This Hon’ble Court had the occasion to deal with the issue of Bundhs, Hartals, Processions causing nuisance to the public, etc in the public interest litigation filed by this petitioner. It was year’s back he had supported the cause for compulsory singing of national anthem at schools. He has recently got himself impleaded in the writ petition filed to ban the burning of plastic and other waste which will adversely affect the health of the people and global warming and consequent climate change. Through this public interest litigation, this petitioner wanted to implement the installation of speed governors in all public transport vehicles wherein the public are being carried for hire and the speedy motor vehicles.
2. As per the road accident data compiled by the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre (NATPAC), Kerala has become the second most accident-prone State in the country after Maharashtra. Kerala stands third in India in terms of road accidents with 4,000 deaths and 40,000 injuries every year. The statistics kept by the Motor Vehicle Department of Kerala will show that 39014 motor vehicles accidents have taken place in the year 2015. The said statistics will show a growing trend in number of accidents. Last year 4196 persons have been killed and 43735 persons have been injured. Road accident was the third major cause of death and disability in Kerala. Every day in Kerala around eleven people die and 150 get injured in road accidents.
3. The main causes of the increasing death rates in the Road accident is the aggressive driving behavior of Heavy vehicle drivers especially Private Buses & Tipper Lorries and over speeding. It is to curtail over speeding Speed Governors (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) are directed to be installed in all public transport vehicles as per Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles. {hereinafter referred
P a g e | 4
to as “the said Rule”) But the said Rule was not implemented. When the Private Bus Operators challenged the imposition of condition to install speed governor in the stage carriage permits issued it was challenged before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority in imposing such a condition of installation of speed governors in the permits, [Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators Association vs RTO. 1986 KLT 712.]. But the said Rule 118 of CMV Rules were not implemented for unknown reasons. Thus the necessity to have speed governors in such vehicles was affirmed by this Hon’ble Court as early as in 1986.
4. When the accidents increased this Hon’ble High Court in a public interest litigation directed the Government of Kerala to implement the said Rule 118 by insisting on the installation of speed governors in all public transport vehicles. (Radhakrishnan vs State of Kerala 2003 (1) KLT 383) The said decision was challenged by the State as well as by the operators before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same affirming the need to have speed governors in all such vehicles. [Rajasekharan vs Joseph. (2005)12 SCC 32]. Thus speed governors are a must for transport vehicles where the public are carried for hire. The Rule was at the relevant time made applicable to heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles.
5. When the 2nd and 3rd respondents started implementing the insistence for speed governors the Tipper lorry operators have challenged the GO(P) No. 5/2006/Tran. dated 13-1-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent notifying that all Tipper Lorries shall be fitted, by the operators of such vehicles, with a speed governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the standard AIS:018, as amended from time to time, in such a manner that the Speed Governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or the
P a g e | 5
Regional Transport Authority, in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with, without the seal being broken. The said notification has come into force on 13-1-2006. It was affirmed by this Hon’ble High Court. The said judgment was reported as Sukumaran E.S. vs State of Kerala, AIR 2006 Kerala 250.
6. There after certain stage carriage operators used to get permits from the nearby Karnataka State so as to circumvent the judgment of this Hon’ble Court. The Karnataka State Government was also lethargic in implementing the provisions of the said Rule. In public interest litigation the Karnataka High Court has directed to implement the insistence of speed governors in all public vehicles where people are carried for hire. The said judgment is reported as Y.N.Nanjappa vs State of Karnataka. AIR 2008 Kant 199.
7. The maxi cab operators approached the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court alleging that they shall be exempted from installing the speed governors. But the High Court refused to interfere with the said order which mandates the installation of speed governors. The said judgment is reported as Raghupathy Bhat and ors vs State of Karnataka. AIR 2008 Kar 203.
8. Thus it is the settled law that speed governors must be installed in all public transport vehicles where the people are carried for hire. Such a direction was issued in public interest so as to protect their life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Now the said Rule 118 was amended as per GSR 290(E), dated 15th April, 2015 making it mandatory for the installation of speed governors in all transport vehicles which are notified by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. For medium goods and medium passenger vehicles it is mandatory from 1st October, 2015. For old vehicles the
P a g e | 6
time has been granted time up to 31st March, 2016. A true copy of notification issued by the 1st respondent ,GSR 290(E) , dated 15th April, 2015, published the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, No.233, dated 15th April, 2015, referred to above is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.1.
10. Exhibit.P.1 notification stipulates that on or before 1st October, 2015 the State Government was bound to issue a notification to insist for the categories of transport vehicles registered prior to the 1st October, 2015, which are not already fitted with speed governors and are not covered under the first proviso to sub-rule 1 that such transport vehicles shall be equipped or fitted by the operators of those vehicles on or before 1st April, 2016 with a speed governor having a maximum pre-set speed of 80 kms/hour or such lower speed specified by the State from time to time. The 2nd respondent by G.O.(P) No. 59/2016/Tran, dated 27-10-2016 has notified that every transport vehicle notified by the 1st respondent under sub-section (4) of section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , except two wheelers, three wheelers, quadricycles and four wheeled and used for carriage of passengers and their luggage, with seating capacity not exceeding eight passengers in addition to driver seat (M1 Category) and not exceeding 3500 kgs gross vehicle weight, fire tenders, ambulances, police vehicles, verified by a testing agency specified in rule 126 to have maximum rated speed of not more than 80 km/hr that are manufactured before 1st October, 2015 shall be equipped or fitted with a speed governor having a maximum pre-set speed of 80 kms per hour conforming to the prescribed standards. A true photostat copy of the said G.O. (P) No. 59/2016/Tran, dated 27-10-2016 issued by the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.2.
11. Thus the 2nd respondent has started the implementation of the installation of speed governors in all public transport vehicles as
P a g e | 7
directed by this Hon’ble Court in its letter and spirit. Now in view of the Amendment made to the said Rule the 2nd respondent also issued a notification as required by the amendment for the same. But the 1st respondent has issued orders exempting the said vehicles notified by the State Government up to 31st January, 2017 from installation of speed governors. A true photostat copy of the said S.O. 3604(E), dated 1-12-2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.3.
12. It is not for the first time the 1st respondent is exempting the said vehicles from installation. By order dated 22nd April, 2016 the time limit was extended by 31st July, 2016. Again by order dated 1st August, 2016 the time was extended by 31st October, 2016. A true photostat copy of the said order No. 1472(E), dated 22-04-2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.4. A true photostat copy of the said order No. 2574(E), dated 01-08-2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.5.
13. It is respectfully submitted that now by granting exemption to the vehicles wherein the public are carried for hire the 1st respondent has forced the 2nd respondent in implementing the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court has issued directions to install speed governors in all public vehicles taking into consideration all aspects and it is rightly implemented by the Kerala Government. The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the above judgments which have protect the life of the people while issuing Exhibits. P.3 to P.5. No proper reason has been given by the 1st respondent for granting exemption. It is the settled proposition of law that enactment of law and tolerating infringement is equivalent to not enacting the law at all. The non-implementation of Exhibit.P.1 amendment within the prescribed time has caused loss of life of many. Frequent road
P a g e | 8
accidents are common and the main reason is the non-implementation of speed controlling devices in transport vehicles. It is respectfully submitted that nowadays many of the two wheelers, which are having more speed are causing accidents and are a threat to the life of the people. Their speed is also to be controlled by suitable amendments to the said Rule.
14. The Central Government is playing with the life of the people of Kerala without any valid reason. The life of the petitioner who rides in motor cycle is in threat. Any time a speedy vehicle may hit him in violation of the said Rule 118. Therefore in these circumstances this petitioner has no other remedy than to invoke this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article.226 of the Constitution of India on the following among other grounds:
G R O U N D S
A. Exhibits.P.3 to P.5 orders are issued without any valid reason. The said orders are arbitrary and contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court and Supreme Court of India.
B. The power to grant exemption under Sec. 110 (3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 cannot be used to circumvent the directions issued by Courts. By way of executive orders the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court cannot be violated.
C. The time limit prescribed for the implementation of Rule 118 of the CMV Rules has lapsed on 1st April, 2016. But certain officers working under the 1st respondent are illegally helping the operators who do not want to abide law and who have lost the case.
D. The first respondent is personally bound to compensate the victims of motor accidents that may cause on account of the non-
P a g e | 9
implementation of Rule 118 of the CMV Rules. The said loss should be recovered from the officers who have issued Exhibits P.4 to P.6.
E. To impose suitable restrictions so as to control the speed of motor vehicles which are capable of driving at higher speed and recklessly.
For the reasons set out above and in the affidavit filed herewith the petitioner prays that the following:
R E L I E F S
i. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit.P.3 and quash the same;
ii. To issue a writ, direction or order declaring that the power to grant exemption under Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be used to restrain the installation of speed governors which is done as directed the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court;
iii. Such other relief’s which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case for the implementation of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as amended on 15th April, 2015, Exhibit.P.2;
iv. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate steps to curtail the high speed of motor vehicles which ply through the roads of Kerala state.
Writ Petition.(Civil).No…3 9 9 4 6......of 2016
Major.M.G.C.Nair………………………………………….…….…………..Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ........................................Respondent
S Y N O P S I S
Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court of India issued directions for the installation of speed governors in public transport vehicles. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 118 contemplated the installation of speed governors in heavy goods vehicle and passenger vehicles. Now the said rule is amended as per GSR 290(E), dated 15th April, 2015 making it mandatory for the installation of speed governors in all medium goods and medium passenger. Invoking the power given to the State Government for insisting speed governors on existing vehicles the Government of Kerala has issued Exhibit.P.3. But the Government of India exercising its powers under Sec. 110 (3) (a) has granted exemption from the said provisions till 31st January,2017 without any valid reasons. Therefore speed governors cannot be made mandatory. The result is that accidents are increasing causing deaths of many innocent. Every day in Kerala around eleven people die and 150 get injured in road accidents and if speed governor is installed at least some life could be saved.
Counsel for the Petitioner
P a g e | 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, KERALA [SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION] WRIT PETITION (CIVIL).No…3 9 9 4 6...of 2016 BETWEEN PETITIONER: Major M.G.C.Nair (Retired) , aged 80 years son of Late N.Govindan Nair, residing at Rajalakshmi Nivas, 129 BMRA, BalakrishnaMenon Road, Edapppally, Cochin-682024. AND RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport and High Ways, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Transport Bhawan,1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 2. State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Motor Vehicles Department, Thiruvananthapuram- 3. The Transport Commissioner, Transport Commissionerate, 2nd Floor, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thycaud P.O. Thiruvananthapuram-695014. All process to the petitioner be served on his counsel M/s. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, T.S.HARIKUMAR, K.JAGADEESH, RAAJESH.S. SUBRAHMANIAN, Advocates, Sahasram Associates, Narayaneeyam Buildings, Chittoor Road, Cochin-682011. All process to the respondents be sent on their above addresses or on their advocates, if any engaged. WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Statement of Facts. The petitioner above named states as follows:-
1. The petitioner is a resident of Cochin Corporation. He has filed many public interest litigation before this Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble
P a g e | 3
Supreme Court of India so as to protect the life of the people from many of the evils. This Hon’ble Court had the occasion to deal with the issue of Bundhs, Hartals, Processions causing nuisance to the public, etc in the public interest litigation filed by this petitioner. It was year’s back he had supported the cause for compulsory singing of national anthem at schools. He has recently got himself impleaded in the writ petition filed to ban the burning of plastic and other waste which will adversely affect the health of the people and global warming and consequent climate change. Through this public interest litigation, this petitioner wanted to implement the installation of speed governors in all public transport vehicles wherein the public are being carried for hire and the speedy motor vehicles.
2. As per the road accident data compiled by the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre (NATPAC), Kerala has become the second most accident-prone State in the country after Maharashtra. Kerala stands third in India in terms of road accidents with 4,000 deaths and 40,000 injuries every year. The statistics kept by the Motor Vehicle Department of Kerala will show that 39014 motor vehicles accidents have taken place in the year 2015. The said statistics will show a growing trend in number of accidents. Last year 4196 persons have been killed and 43735 persons have been injured. Road accident was the third major cause of death and disability in Kerala. Every day in Kerala around eleven people die and 150 get injured in road accidents.
3. The main causes of the increasing death rates in the Road accident is the aggressive driving behavior of Heavy vehicle drivers especially Private Buses & Tipper Lorries and over speeding. It is to curtail over speeding Speed Governors (speed limiting device or speed limiting function) are directed to be installed in all public transport vehicles as per Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles. {hereinafter referred
P a g e | 4
to as “the said Rule”) But the said Rule was not implemented. When the Private Bus Operators challenged the imposition of condition to install speed governor in the stage carriage permits issued it was challenged before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority in imposing such a condition of installation of speed governors in the permits, [Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators Association vs RTO. 1986 KLT 712.]. But the said Rule 118 of CMV Rules were not implemented for unknown reasons. Thus the necessity to have speed governors in such vehicles was affirmed by this Hon’ble Court as early as in 1986.
4. When the accidents increased this Hon’ble High Court in a public interest litigation directed the Government of Kerala to implement the said Rule 118 by insisting on the installation of speed governors in all public transport vehicles. (Radhakrishnan vs State of Kerala 2003 (1) KLT 383) The said decision was challenged by the State as well as by the operators before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. But the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the same affirming the need to have speed governors in all such vehicles. [Rajasekharan vs Joseph. (2005)12 SCC 32]. Thus speed governors are a must for transport vehicles where the public are carried for hire. The Rule was at the relevant time made applicable to heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles.
5. When the 2nd and 3rd respondents started implementing the insistence for speed governors the Tipper lorry operators have challenged the GO(P) No. 5/2006/Tran. dated 13-1-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent notifying that all Tipper Lorries shall be fitted, by the operators of such vehicles, with a speed governor (speed controlling device) conforming to the standard AIS:018, as amended from time to time, in such a manner that the Speed Governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or the
P a g e | 5
Regional Transport Authority, in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with, without the seal being broken. The said notification has come into force on 13-1-2006. It was affirmed by this Hon’ble High Court. The said judgment was reported as Sukumaran E.S. vs State of Kerala, AIR 2006 Kerala 250.
6. There after certain stage carriage operators used to get permits from the nearby Karnataka State so as to circumvent the judgment of this Hon’ble Court. The Karnataka State Government was also lethargic in implementing the provisions of the said Rule. In public interest litigation the Karnataka High Court has directed to implement the insistence of speed governors in all public vehicles where people are carried for hire. The said judgment is reported as Y.N.Nanjappa vs State of Karnataka. AIR 2008 Kant 199.
7. The maxi cab operators approached the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court alleging that they shall be exempted from installing the speed governors. But the High Court refused to interfere with the said order which mandates the installation of speed governors. The said judgment is reported as Raghupathy Bhat and ors vs State of Karnataka. AIR 2008 Kar 203.
8. Thus it is the settled law that speed governors must be installed in all public transport vehicles where the people are carried for hire. Such a direction was issued in public interest so as to protect their life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. Now the said Rule 118 was amended as per GSR 290(E), dated 15th April, 2015 making it mandatory for the installation of speed governors in all transport vehicles which are notified by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. For medium goods and medium passenger vehicles it is mandatory from 1st October, 2015. For old vehicles the
P a g e | 6
time has been granted time up to 31st March, 2016. A true copy of notification issued by the 1st respondent ,GSR 290(E) , dated 15th April, 2015, published the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, No.233, dated 15th April, 2015, referred to above is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.1.
10. Exhibit.P.1 notification stipulates that on or before 1st October, 2015 the State Government was bound to issue a notification to insist for the categories of transport vehicles registered prior to the 1st October, 2015, which are not already fitted with speed governors and are not covered under the first proviso to sub-rule 1 that such transport vehicles shall be equipped or fitted by the operators of those vehicles on or before 1st April, 2016 with a speed governor having a maximum pre-set speed of 80 kms/hour or such lower speed specified by the State from time to time. The 2nd respondent by G.O.(P) No. 59/2016/Tran, dated 27-10-2016 has notified that every transport vehicle notified by the 1st respondent under sub-section (4) of section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , except two wheelers, three wheelers, quadricycles and four wheeled and used for carriage of passengers and their luggage, with seating capacity not exceeding eight passengers in addition to driver seat (M1 Category) and not exceeding 3500 kgs gross vehicle weight, fire tenders, ambulances, police vehicles, verified by a testing agency specified in rule 126 to have maximum rated speed of not more than 80 km/hr that are manufactured before 1st October, 2015 shall be equipped or fitted with a speed governor having a maximum pre-set speed of 80 kms per hour conforming to the prescribed standards. A true photostat copy of the said G.O. (P) No. 59/2016/Tran, dated 27-10-2016 issued by the 2nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.2.
11. Thus the 2nd respondent has started the implementation of the installation of speed governors in all public transport vehicles as
P a g e | 7
directed by this Hon’ble Court in its letter and spirit. Now in view of the Amendment made to the said Rule the 2nd respondent also issued a notification as required by the amendment for the same. But the 1st respondent has issued orders exempting the said vehicles notified by the State Government up to 31st January, 2017 from installation of speed governors. A true photostat copy of the said S.O. 3604(E), dated 1-12-2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.3.
12. It is not for the first time the 1st respondent is exempting the said vehicles from installation. By order dated 22nd April, 2016 the time limit was extended by 31st July, 2016. Again by order dated 1st August, 2016 the time was extended by 31st October, 2016. A true photostat copy of the said order No. 1472(E), dated 22-04-2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.4. A true photostat copy of the said order No. 2574(E), dated 01-08-2016 issued by the 1st respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.P.5.
13. It is respectfully submitted that now by granting exemption to the vehicles wherein the public are carried for hire the 1st respondent has forced the 2nd respondent in implementing the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon’ble Court has issued directions to install speed governors in all public vehicles taking into consideration all aspects and it is rightly implemented by the Kerala Government. The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the above judgments which have protect the life of the people while issuing Exhibits. P.3 to P.5. No proper reason has been given by the 1st respondent for granting exemption. It is the settled proposition of law that enactment of law and tolerating infringement is equivalent to not enacting the law at all. The non-implementation of Exhibit.P.1 amendment within the prescribed time has caused loss of life of many. Frequent road
P a g e | 8
accidents are common and the main reason is the non-implementation of speed controlling devices in transport vehicles. It is respectfully submitted that nowadays many of the two wheelers, which are having more speed are causing accidents and are a threat to the life of the people. Their speed is also to be controlled by suitable amendments to the said Rule.
14. The Central Government is playing with the life of the people of Kerala without any valid reason. The life of the petitioner who rides in motor cycle is in threat. Any time a speedy vehicle may hit him in violation of the said Rule 118. Therefore in these circumstances this petitioner has no other remedy than to invoke this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article.226 of the Constitution of India on the following among other grounds:
G R O U N D S
A. Exhibits.P.3 to P.5 orders are issued without any valid reason. The said orders are arbitrary and contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court and Supreme Court of India.
B. The power to grant exemption under Sec. 110 (3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 cannot be used to circumvent the directions issued by Courts. By way of executive orders the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Court cannot be violated.
C. The time limit prescribed for the implementation of Rule 118 of the CMV Rules has lapsed on 1st April, 2016. But certain officers working under the 1st respondent are illegally helping the operators who do not want to abide law and who have lost the case.
D. The first respondent is personally bound to compensate the victims of motor accidents that may cause on account of the non-
P a g e | 9
implementation of Rule 118 of the CMV Rules. The said loss should be recovered from the officers who have issued Exhibits P.4 to P.6.
E. To impose suitable restrictions so as to control the speed of motor vehicles which are capable of driving at higher speed and recklessly.
For the reasons set out above and in the affidavit filed herewith the petitioner prays that the following:
R E L I E F S
i. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit.P.3 and quash the same;
ii. To issue a writ, direction or order declaring that the power to grant exemption under Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be used to restrain the installation of speed governors which is done as directed the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court;
iii. Such other relief’s which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case for the implementation of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as amended on 15th April, 2015, Exhibit.P.2;
iv. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to take appropriate steps to curtail the high speed of motor vehicles which ply through the roads of Kerala state.
No comments:
Post a Comment