High Court Kerala High Court

Sayyid Muhammad Haneef Thangal vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sayyid Muhammad Haneef Thangal vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20439 of 2009(Y)


1. SAYYID MUHAMMAD HANEEF THANGAL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF

6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

8. THE SECRETARY, KASARGODE TALUK

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :17/08/2010

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.20439 OF 2009
                  -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010


                              JUDGMENT

“C.R.”

1.The petitioner represents a trust which runs a women’s college

by name Kaleel Salah English Medium Women’s College in

Pudiyavalappu, Galimukha in Mangalore District, Dakshina

Karnataka. It is an educational institution which is not

affiliated to any university. Petitioner complains that the

students of that institution are illegally deprived of the benefit

of the Government Order, G.O.(P).97/96/PW&T dated

13.8.1996, as amended by Ext.P7 Government Order, G.O.(P).

103/96/PW&T dated 13.9.1996 and are thus denied the benefit

of travel concession in stage carriages. The petitioner has

produced materials to show that students of that institution

were extended the benefit of travel concession which is now

denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the presence of

the counsel for the Kannur University, has also shown to the

Court the mark lists issued to one of the students of the

WPC.20439/09

2

institution by the Kannur University which conducts Afsal

Uluma course in 10+2 scheme.

2.On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 8th

respondent Kasaragode Taluk Bus Owner’s Association, it can

be seen that the fundamental objection to the claim of the

students of the petitioner’s institution is that the benefit of the

notifications issued by the Government providing concession

would not extend beyond the territorial limits of the State of

Kerala and therefore, would not be available to students who

study outside that State. The educational institution,

admittedly, being in the State of Karnataka, its students are

not entitled to the benefit of the notification as amended as per

Ext.P7, contends the Bus Owners’ Association. Learned

counsel for the 8th respondent further says that Ext.P3, which

is produced to show that concessions were issued earlier, was

essentially the product of some misrepresentation.

WPC.20439/09

3

3.The second among the objections noted above needs to be

dealt with first. Of the two places shown in Ext.P3, one is in

Karnataka and the other in Kerala. Obviously there could not

have been any misrepresentation on that count. Since the said

document is issued by the Students’ Travel Facility Committee

of Kasaragod district, it would be far fetched to assume that

the members of that Committee could have been duped as

regards the identity of the destination of travel of the student

concerned. Not only that, any benefit in terms of the

amendment relied on is to be considered by the committee on

a case to case basis and the claim of each student for travel

concession has to be decided by looking into whether he/she is

studying in any institution as claimed and whether that

institution has registered his/her name in any of the

Universities in Kerala as a student for a particular course or

private study. It has also to be ascertained whether the total

distance to be travelled is within the limit of 40 kms. These

are questions of facts which the committee will have to look

into when claim for concession is made, though the identity of

WPC.20439/09

4

the educational institution and the course vis.a.vis. a particular

university may be a general issue of fact for decision by the

committee. Therefore, that issue would not really matter

much, if the committee decides on the request for travel

concession appropriately, in the light of what is stated in this

paragraph.

4.The crucial issue falling for decision is as to the scope of the

notification. The question would be as to whether the benefit

of that notification would be applicable for travel beyond the

geographical limits of the State of Kerala. The fact situation is

that the claim is made as if the students proceed from a point

within the State of Kerala to a point in the State of Karnataka.

5.The power to issue a notification regulating concession of fairs

is among those powers of the State Government under Section

67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter, the ‘MV Act’,

for short. That provision empowers the State Government to

control road transport. To exercise that statutory power, it has

WPC.20439/09

5

to take into consideration, the different matters enumerated

in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 67(1) of the MV Act. Having

regard to that, a State Government may, from time to time,

issue directions to the State Transport Authority and Regional

Transport Authority. This has to be done by notification in the

Official Gazette. The matters in relation to which such

notification could be issued are enumerated in clauses (i), (ii)

and (iii) occurring in Section 67(1) which includes the fixation

of fairs and freights as also any other matter which may

appear to the State Government necessary or expedient to give

effect to any agreement entered into with the Central

Government or any other State Government or the

Government of any other country relating to the regulation of

motor transport generally, and in particular, to its co-

ordination with other means of transport and the conveying of

long distance goods traffic. The power of the State Transport

Authority and the attended authorities under the MV Act to

grant inter-state permit with concurrence is essentially

statutory power. The notification issued by the State

WPC.20439/09

6

Government under Section 67 is one issued in exercise of

statutory power and in so far as the State of Kerala is

concerned, such a notification issued by the Government of the

State of Kerala would be applicable to all acts which are done

by the Government of the State of Kerala and the State

Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities in

the State of Kerala. It is not as if the State Government makes

a legislation with reference to its legislative competence in

terms of the Constitution. It is the State Government issuing a

statutory notification in exercise of a statutory power under a

central legislation. The intention of Section 67 empowering

the State Government to control road transport, including for

the purpose of giving effect to agreements entered into the

Central Government or any other State Government, shows the

width and amplitude of that power and the primary intent

behind it viz., that the purpose of the MV Act in relation to

ensuring facilities and means of transport is effectively and

efficiently effectuated. Therefore, while giving effect to its

inter-state obligations to provide inter-state permits, it would

WPC.20439/09

7

necessarily be within the power of a State Government, here,

the Government of Kerala, exercising authority under Section

67 and fixing tariff, to extend concession at least in cases

where it relates to students and applies to permits applied for

and granted from the statutory authorities in the State of

Kerala even if such permits could be only with the concurrence

of the corresponding authorities in any other State. The larger

interest sought to be addressed by providing travel fare

concession to students stands supported by a constellation of

constitutional provisions which lie in Parts III and IV of the

Constitution of India. Any other way of interpreting Ext.P7

and the primary notification that had been amended by it may

only run contrary to the constitutional goals sought to be

achieved by ensuring that education is provided to the younger

generation of the Nation by permitting them to move within

their means and with the reasonable support of the State to

reach places where education is provided to them. In the case

in hand, it could also be a situation where the matter relates to

women empowerment, the institution being a women’s college.

WPC.20439/09

8

For the aforesaid reasons, the benefit of the amended

notification Ext.P7, G.O.(P).103/96/PW&T dated 13.9.1996,

would stand extended to such students who would fall within

item (ii) of heading “G” in the primary notification viz. G.O.(P).

97/96/PW&T dated 13.8.1996 without reference to the fact

whether the educational institution where they undergo the

study is outside the territorial limits of the State of Kerala,

provided the stage carriages in relation to which concessions are

offered are those which are issued with permits by the transport

authorities in the State of Kerala. It is so declared. It is further

directed that the statutory authorities under the MV Act will

follow this declaration and give effect to it in terms of what is

stated above. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid

extent. No costs.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.26/08.