Srinagar, Oct 22: The High Court (HC) of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that all public service vehicles must have vehicle location tracker devices (VLTD) and emergency panic buttons under the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) 1988.
However, the court said two wheelers, three wheelers, e-rickshaw and a transport vehicle for which no permit is required under the MVA Act are not required to be equipped with tracker and panic buttons.
Dismissing a plea filed by Green Valley Sumo Taxi Stand Union seeking exemption from equipping VLTDs and panic buttons, the court left it open for the petitioner association to move a representation before the Competent Authority for seeking reasonable extension of time, so that they are in a position to comply with Rule 125-H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
In case any such representation is made, Justice Sanjeev Kumar directed the Competent Authority to accord it due consideration having regard to the difficulties pointed out by the petitioner association
According to the Section 2(35) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, a “public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage.
As per the Act, a stage carriage permit holder picks passengers from one point and there can be various stages till the final destination point which are various stages, that is why it is called a ‘stage carriage’.
The bench said that the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents for acting contrary to the statutory Rules.
It is true, the bench noted, that the government of J&K is empowered to grant exemption having regard to the relevant facts and circumstances and provide reasonable time to the petitioner to have their public service vehicles fitted with the requisite devices to comply with the Rule 125-H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
“This is, however, left to be determined by the Competent Authority having regard to the attending facts and circumstances,” the court said.
That apart, the court noted that the petitioner has lost its right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by being unfair and attempting to play with the process of law.
“The dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not disable the petitioner from making a representation in this regard to the competent authority for seeking reasonable extension of time, so that they are in a position to comply with Rule 125-H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,” the court said.
The case of the petitioner association was that the Sumo and Taxis owned by the members of the petitioner association are registered before December 31, 2018, and, therefore, they are exempted from the fitment of VLTD and panic buttons till appropriate infrastructure like command and control centers to monitor and track the vehicles is established in the Union Territory of J&K.
The petitioner placed reliance on a communication issued by the Government of India (GoI), Ministry of Roads, Transport and Highways on October 31, 2018, which referred to notification dated April 18, 2018, whereby the GoI, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 110 of the MVA 1988, has exempted all Public Service Vehicles from the provisions of Rule 125-H of the Central Motor vehicles Rules 1989, providing for equipping VLTD and one or more emergency panic buttons up to April 01, 2019.
It was submitted that despite there being a communication dated January 15, 2020, issued by Ministry of Roads Transport and Highways, to all the State and Union Territory governments for formulating scheme for implementation of “Development, Customization, Deployment and Management” of State wise vehicle tracking platform for safety and enforcement etc, the government of J&K has not so far framed any such scheme.
“Absent such a scheme, the petitioners cannot be compelled to equip their vehicles registered prior to 31st December, 2018, with the VLTD and emergency panic buttons” it was contended.
The petitioner Union claimed that their vehicles are due for issuance of fitness certificates, but because of the inability of the petitioner to equip their vehicles with VLTD and emergency panic buttons, the respondents have declined to issue the certificate of fitness in their favour.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the in-action of the respondents to grant certificate of fitness in favour of the petitioner has deprived them of their right to livelihood guaranteed by Constitution of India in terms of Article 21 thereof.
