M.S. Sonak, J.@mdashThe petitioner-Mumbai Pune Taxi Owners Association is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 comprising taxi owners operating taxi services on ''point to point basis'' (contract carriage permit holders) between Mumbai and Pune. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia impugns a decision of the respondents, i.e., the Regional Transport Authority requiring contract carriage permit holders operating Mumbai-Pune taxi services and who have obtained or are going to apply for "replacement of permit vehicle" to have vehicles with engine capacity above 1300 cc. This decision is contained in a Resolution dated 5.8.2010 adopted by the Regional Transport Authority, Maharashtra (Exh. A) and confirmed/reiterated by the same authority vide Resolution dated 16.3.2013 (Exh. O)
2. In the year 2010, the petitioner represented to the respondents seeking an increase in fare for the Mumbai-Pune route. This proposal was taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority-Mumbai, Metropolitan Region in its meeting held on 5.8.2010. The demand of the petitioner for enhancement of taxi fares was partly accepted and in the same meeting, R.T.A. resolved that all permit holders who have taken replacement orders or who are henceforth going to apply for "replacement of vehicle" should be permitted to do so only if the engine capacity of the vehicle to be replaced is above 1300 CC.
3. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid condition imposed with regard to ''replacement vehicles'' addressed representations dated 26.12.2010 urging that replacement may be permitted even in respect of vehicles having capacity upto 1000 cc. By a communication dated 25.2.2011, the petitioners were informed that their representation is under consideration. However, as there was no response, the petitioner once again addressed a representations dated 12.5.2011, 7.6.2011 and 27.9.2011 followed by a legal notice dated 12.11.2011.
4. As there was no response, the petitioner included their grievance in Writ Petition (L) No. 1827 of 2011, which was filed because the respondents were not permitting the petitioner''s members to ply taxis from National and International Airport on the Mumbai-Pune route. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 3.10.2011. This judgment and order, does not contain any express directions regards the grievance of the petitioner concerning ''replacement vehicle''. However, the petitioners placed reliance upon paragraph ''6'' of the judgment and order wherein it is observed that:
Needless to state that the concerned authority is required to see that the Taxi service is not restricted to a particular type of vehicle, but the need of the passengers and the comfort should be kept in mind while permitting the particular types of vehicle to ply between Mumbai-Pune.
5. The petitioner''s Secretary, one Shankar Shetty, as a test case, applied on 4.7.2012 to replace his permit vehicle, which was badly damaged with a vehicle having engine capacity of around 1248 CC. The R.T.A. however, rejected this application vide communication dated 10.7.2012 on the ground that the replacement vehicle had to be above 1300 CC in terms of decision No. 43 of 2010 dated 5.8.2010.
6. The petitioner, accordingly, filed present Writ Petition impugning the decision bearing No. 43 of 2010 dated 5.8.2010 (Exh. A). On 14th March, 2013, Mr. Nalavade, the Government Pleader appearing for the respondents made as statement that the issue raised in the present petition has been kept for reconsideration before the R.T.A. in its meeting Scheduled on 16.3.2013. Accordingly, the matter was stood over to 3.4.2013.
7. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 16.3.2013 took up the decision No. 43 of 2010 dated 5.8.2010 for reconsideration in the light of the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 1827 of 2010 (renumbered W.P. No. 2183 of 2011) on 3.10.2011. The R.T.A., however, decided to maintain the decision No. 43/2010 dated 5.8.2010, taking into consideration that comfort, safety and luggage carrying capacity warranted that the ''replacement vehicles'' have engine capacity of not less than 1300 cc whilst plying upon the Mumbai-Pune route.
8. Although the petitioner has not disclosed in the petition, it appears that the petitioner had preferred contempt petition No. 24 of 2012 alleging that the respondents have not implemented the judgment and order dated 3.10.2011 passed in W.P. (L) No. 1827 of 2011 (renumbered WP No. 2183 of 2011). The contempt petition was disposed of by the order dated 20.4.2012 upon the statement made by the petitioner-association that it has no subsisting grievance and does not desire to proceed with the contempt petition. The order dated 20.4.2013 reads as under:
It is stated by the petitioner-Association that it has no subsisting grievance and does not desire to proceed with this petition.
2] From the reading of the order passed by the Division bench and particularly para 6 thereof, it is apparent that the Authority was to bear in mind the suggestion and direction of the Division Bench and it was understood accordingly.
3] Now that there is compliance reported and the suggestion has been noted by the Authority and it has taken due note thereof, nothing survives in the contempt petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
9. Mr. Shah, advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the first place relied upon Rule ''119'' of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to contend that sub-rule (2) provides for grant of permits in respect of any motor-cab covered by the Notification made under sub-rule (1), as long as such motor-cab has an engine capacity of not less than 980 CC. Relevant extract of Rule 119 is quoted for ready reference;
119. Motor cabs fitted with fare meters.-(1) A Regional Transport Authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette, require that within the limits of such area as may be specified in the notification all motor cabs or any class of motor cabs shall be fitted with (taxi meter)
(2) Where a notification as aforesaid has been issued, permits in respect of any motor cab covered by the notification shall not be granted unless fitted with (taxi meter), except under the following conditions,-
(i) that such owner shall provide such garage accommodation for cabs as is approved by the Regional Transport Authority;
(ii) the cabs shall not be let on hire from public stands or from public places];
(iii) That other than the three wheeler auto rickshaw, the cabs such as the luxury or tourist or maxi cab or jeep type of motor cabs shall have an engine of not less than 980 c.c.
(3) The rule of fitment of fare meter will not be applicable to luxury or tourist or (maxi cab or jeep type of motor cab
Explanation-For the purposes of this rule,-
(i) "luxury cab" means a motor cab with a licensed seating capacity of not less than three adult passengers excluding the driver, in respect of which a permit has been granted under the conditions specified in sub-rule (2);
(ii) "tourist cab" means a motor cab for which a permit has been granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Act;
(iii) "jeep type of motor cab" means jeep type of motor vehicle with,-
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
... (Emphasis supplied)
10. The bare reading of Rule 119 makes it clear that the same applies motor-cabs fitted with fare meters in pursuance of the Notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority in terms of sub-rule (1) thereof. Admittedly, the vehicles of the petitioner''s members are not covered by Notification under Rule 119(1) and consequently they are not even required to be fitted with fare meters or taxi meters. Further, it is not even the case of the petitioner that the vehicles of their members answer, definition of "luxury cab", "tourist cab, or "jeep type of motor cab" referred to in sub-rule (3) of Rule 119. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot rely upon Rule 119(2) (iii), which makes reference to vehicles having engine capacity of not less than 980 CC. Rule 119 is not at all applicable to the vehicles of the petitioner''s members. Therefore, the first contention of Mr. Shah cannot be accepted.
11. Mr. Shah, then relying upon Rule 66A of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, contended that Contract Carriage Permits in respect of motor cabs fitted with vehicle tracking device (Phone/Fleet Taxi) issuable to companies registered under Companies Act, 1956 or Partnership Firms, are granted where engine capacity of the vehicle is not less than 1200 C.C. in area of the State other than Mumbai Metropolitan Region area (MMR) and for MMR area, where the engine capacity is not less than 1400 C.C. He submitted that the respondents by insisting that replacement vehicles operated by the petitioner''s members on the Mumbai-Pune route should have engine capacity of not less than 1300 C.C. were practising discrimination thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relevant portion of Rule 66 A is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:
66A. Grant of Contract Carriage Permits in respect of motor cabs fitted with vehicle tracking devices (Phone/Fleet Taxi) to companies registered under Companies Act, 1956 or Partnership Firms.
(1) The Regional Transport Authority of one region may grant a permit to the Licenced operators of motor cabs fitted with vehicle tracking devices to ply as a contract carriage to be valid throughout the area decided by the State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State without the countersignature of Regional Transport Authorities of the other regions.
(2) The following guidelines shall be followed before issue of licences to such holder:
(a) The holder of Phone/Fleet Taxi shall obtain final licence from the State Transport Authority, Maharashtra State. No person shall engage himself in the business of Phone/Fleet Taxi Service under the Scheme without valid licence.
(b) ...
(c) (i) The Licensee shall operate note less than 100 permits in cities other than in Mumbai Metropolitan Region further Mumbai Metropolitan Region, the company shall have to operate not less than 1000 permits each permit shall be used to operate air conditioned Phone/Fleet Taxis, fitted with electronic fare meter having printer facility.
The Government of Maharashtra shall have the right to distribute the permits by way of inviting bids.
(d) The Licensee shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5 Crore interest free Security deposit. This shall be kept with Government for period of 1 year at the time of bidding. The successful bidder shall have to start the business within one year from the date of issue of licence by S.T.A. If the successful bidder fails to start the operation within one year or as per the time extended by the Government, the security deposit shall be forfeited however, after successful implementation of the project within the stipulated time frame, to the satisfaction of Government, the interest free security deposit shall be refunded by Government.
(e) The vehicles used for Phone/Fleet Taxi shall be brand new at the time of induction or any other imported vehicles meeting the prescribed emission standards as approved by the State Transport Authority.
(f) The engine capacity of the vehicle used shall not be less than 1200 C.C. in Area of the State other than MMR Area for MMR area the capacity of engine shall not less than 1400 C.C. The cab should have independent facility for storing of luggage.
(g) After awarding licence by STA, the successful bidder shall purchase new Air-Conditioned vehicles for operation as Phone Taxi/Fleet Taxi and each such vehicle shall be fitted with GPS/GPRS devices enabling communication with the central control unit of the Licence holder with live tracking and facility to record excess speed driving.
(h) ...
(i) ...
(j) ...
(k) ...
(3) The following, conditions shall be observed by the Licensee-
(a) The Licensee for operation of Phone/Fleet Taxis shall have experience in human resource management and infrastructure to manage the vehicles
(b) He shall provide training facility to the drivers and have technical expertise.
(c) ...
(d) The vehicle must be equipped with First-Aid-Box.
(e) For driving the Phone/Fleet Taxi the Licence holder shall employ a driver in accordance with the stipulation of Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
(f) The driver shall undergo training on a LMV stimulator at the time of employment and after that annually. Also, the driver shall be made to undergo health check up every year for his sight, hearing and other health problems.
(g) The Licensee shall hold the responsibility for the conduct and character of the driver to render safe and trustworthy service. He shall ensure that the driver is free from criminal antecedents.
(h) The Licensee shall display a toll free call number "... " on all the four sides of the Cab for the purpose of lodging a complaint, if any.
(i) The Licensee shall affix a sticker of 6"x 6" dimension on the top right hand side windscreen with particulars of the vehicle registration number, registered owner''s name, the driver''s name, his photograph and the driving licence number.
(j) The vehicles shall always be kept ready for hire at all times.
(k) The fare to be charged shall be as fixed by the State Transport Authority.
(l) The Licence holder shall display a fare chart on side windows prominently and easily visible to the commuters.
(m) Any other condition as may be prescribed by the State Transport Authority from time to time.
(4) The following conditions shall be observed by the driver of the Phone/Fleet Taxi:
(a) The driver uniform shall be as specified by the State Transport Authority.
(b) The driver must carry his original driving licence while driving the vehicle.
... (Emphasis supplied)
12. The contention based upon discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not appeal to us. In the first place, there are no pleadings in the petition in order to establish that the vehicles of the petitioner''s members and the vehicles, which can be granted contract carriage permits under Rule 66-A are in any manner comparable. Such pleading is necessary, because equality can be claimed only amongst equals. Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits the class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. As long as classification is founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that which groups together from others left out of the group and that differential has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, there arises no question of infringement of Article 14.
13. In the present case, apart from the fact that there are no pleadings in the petition, perusal of Rule 66-A of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 makes it clear that there can be no comparison between contract carriage permits in respect of Phone/Fleet Taxis and contract carriage permits for plying from point to point, i.e., from Mumbai to Pune in the present case. The contract carriage permits in respect of the Phone/Fleet Taxis are issued to licensed operators, which may be companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or Partnership Firms. In contrast, contract carriage permits in respect of the vehicles plying from point to point like Mumbai to Pune, in the present case, can be issued even to individuals. None of the conditions prescribed in Rule 66A for Phone/Fleet Taxis apply to contract carriage permits issued to the petitioner''s members plying upon Mumbai-Pune route. Rule 66 A prescribes license fee of Rs. 1,00,000/- Lac in Mumbai and Rs. 25,000/- outside of Mumbai. The Licensee is required to operate not less than 100 permits in city limits other than MMR and 1000 permits in MMR Region. The Phone/Fleet Taxis have to be Air-conditioned fitted with electronic fare meter and have printer facility. The licensee is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 Crores by way of interest free security deposit with the Government for a period of 1 year at the time of bidding for such licence and the successful bidder shall have to start business within 1 year from the date of issue of licence by the State Transport Authority. The vehicles involved in the Phone/Fleet Taxis scheme shall be brand new at the time of induction or any other imported vehicles meeting prescribed emission standard as approved by STA. Besides several conditions have been imposed even upon the drivers to be engaged to drive such Phone/Fleet Taxis. All such conditions and restrictions do not apply to contract carriage permit holders on the Mumbai-Pune route whose case the petitioner espouses. In the circumstances, the petitioner''s contention as regards discrimination and consequent violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby rejected.
14. Mr. Shah, then contended that RTA has no authority to impose the impugned requirement and that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and/or the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which empowers the respondents to impose such a requirement.
15. Mr. Nalawade, the Government Pleader in response rightly placed reliance upon section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the relevant extract of which 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 u/s 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications 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.
(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;
(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) ...
(xi) that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles;
(xii) ...
(xiii) any other conditions which may be prescribed
...
(Emphasis supplied)
16. There is no dispute that the petitioner''s member operate on the Mumbai-Pune route in pursuance of a contract carriage permit granted u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 74(2)(xi) makes it clear that the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant 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 conditions prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 74. One of the conditions prescribed is that specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicles. The learned advocates appearing for the parties have submitted that no rules have been framed with regard to the issue of contract carriage permits and in any case, no rules have been produced before us in this regard. Therefore, in terms of section 74(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is within the competence and authority of the Regional Transport Authority to impose a condition that replacement vehicles shall have engine capacity of not less than 1300 C.C.. The challenge of the petitioner that the respondents have no power or authority in this regard, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected.
17. Shri. Shah then contended that the impugned requirement that replacement vehicles having engine capacity not less than 1300 CC is unreasonable, arbitrary and causes disproportionate hardship and burden upon its members. He gave examples of some Sedan type vehicles having engine capacity between 1000 C.C. to 1200 C.C. and submitted that even such vehicles are safe, comfortable and have sufficient boot space. He relied upon a chart which lists different brands of vehicles, their engine capacities and prices, in order to demonstrate that the price of the vehicles having engine capacity of not less than 1300 C.C. is substantially higher than the vehicles having engine capacity ranging between 1000 to 1200 cc and that the burden upon the petitioner''s members would be harsh and disproportionate to whatsoever income they may earn from plying vehicles on the Mumbai-Pune route. On these grounds, he urged that the impugned requirement be struck down.
18. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention. The impugned requirement has not been made applicable to existing vehicles plying under contract carriage permits. The impugned requirement does not have the effect of rendering the existing vehicles of the petitioner'' members ineligible to ply upon the Mumbai-Pune route. The impugned requirement applies only in case of ''replacement vehicles''. This by itself softens the burden, if any, upon the members of the petitioner-association.
Further from the chart upon which the petitioners have placed reliance, it is seen that some models having engine capacity between 1000 C.C. and 1200 C.C. are priced higher than models having engine capacity of 1400 C.C.. That apart, the circumstance that some burden falls upon the members of the petitioner-association is not a ground to either exercise powers of judicial review or to interfere with a policy decision taken by the respondents in pursuance of the powers vested in it under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The question as to which type/engine capacity of the vehicles are best suited to undertake travel between Mumbai and Pune in pursuance of a contract carriage permit, is in the realm of policy and therefore ordinarily cannot engage the attention of a court exercising powers of the judicial review, unless a statutory or constitutional breach is demonstrated or the policy is demonstrated as being absurd, irrational, illogical and unreasonable. In fact, in such policy matters, the Regional Transport Authorities are required to be conceded substantial latitude.
19. The scope of judicial review, when challenge is made to a policy, is extremely limited. In the case of
20. In the case of
21. In the case of
In the same case, at paragraph 100, the Supreme Court has referred to certain tests as to interference in policy decisions of the State, which have been summed up as under:-
100. Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be summed up as:
(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.
(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.
(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, etc.
(IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions.
(V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or legislations.
(VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation.
Applying the aforesaid principles and tests, we are unable to hold that the impugned requirement is in breach of any statutory or constitutional provisions or that the same is absurd, irrational, illogical and unreasonable.
22. The last contention of Mr. Shah is that the impugned decision dated 16.3.2013 by which the decision No. 43 of 2010 dated 5.8.2010 came to be confirmed/reiterated is in breach of the directions given by this Court in judgment and order dated 3.10.2011 in W.P. (L) No. 1827/2011 (re-numbered as WP No. 2183/2011).
We are unable to agree. The petitioner had filed a contempt petition No. 24 of 2012, possibly upon the very same basis. The same was disposed of by the order and dated 20.4.2012 to which reference has been made earlier. The petitioner did not even care to disclose this fact in the petition. In any case, perusal of para ''6'' of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2011, makes it clear that this Court had merely made a suggestion to the respondents that taxi services be not restricted to a particular type of vehicle, but the need of the passengers and the comfort shall be kept in mind while permitting the particular types of vehicles to ply between Mumbai-Pune. This direction has been taken into consideration by the respondents and the impugned requirement is based upon relevant parameters like luggage bearing capacity, safety and comfort. In these circumstances, we are unable to see any merit in the last contention raised by Mr. Shah on behalf of the petitioner.
The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
