ORDER R.A. Sharma, J.
1. By these writ petitions, petitioners, who are holding national permits for carriage of goods, have challenged the validity of R.6 of National Permit Rules, 1975, framed under S. 63(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) and R. 88 of the "Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act (sic). These Rules which provide for 9 years' model condition of motor vehicles, covered under national permits are quoted below:
"6.(1) National permit shall not be granted or renewed in respect of Motor Vehicles which is more than 9 years old at any point of time.
(2) When a vehicle covered by National Permit is proposed to be replaced by another vehicle the later vehicle shall not be more than 9 years old on the date of such replacement.
(3) National permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle attains the age of 9 years unless the vehicle is replaced in terms of sub-rule (2) above."
"88. Age of motor vehicles for the purposes of National Permit-- (1) No national permit shall be granted in respect of goods carriage which is more than nine years old at any point of time.
(2) A National permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle covered by the permit completes nine years from the date of its initial registration.
Explanation: For the purpose of this rule, the period of nine years shall be completed from the date of initial registration of the goods carriage concerned."
2. Sections 54, 55 and 56 of the old Act provided for applying for and grant of public carrier permits for the carriage of goods for hire or reward by the transport authorities of State. Permits so granted by the authorities of one State are not valid in the other State unless counter-signed by the transport authorities of other State. Requirement of counter-signature on these permits by other State was causing delay and hinderance in the movement of goods. In order to remove constraints on the movement of goods by road, scheme for national permits, so as to make these permits valid for the whole of India, was introduced by Parliament, by means of Motor Vehicle's (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act 26 of 1976), whereby subsections (11) to (15) were added to S. 63 of the old Act. Sub-sections(11) and (15) of S.63 being relegant are quoted below :
"63(11). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), but, subject to the rules that may be made by the Central Government under sub-sec. (15), the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State road trnasport, (grant in a State, national permits to the owners of motor vehicles who use, or intend to use, such vehicles for the carriage of goods, for hire or reward, in respect of such number of motor vehicles) as the Central Government may specify in this behalf in relation to that State and the provisions of Ss. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59A, 60, 61 and 64 shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to the grant of national permits;
Provided that the number of national permits specified for a State shall not be varied or modified except after consultation with the concerned State Government.
Explanation:-- In this section-
(a) 'national permit' means a permit granted by the appropriate authority (to the owner of a motor vehicle authorising him to operate as a public carrier) throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States, not being less than five in number (including the State in which the permit is issued), as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice (indicated by such owner) to whom such permit is granted;
(b) 'appropriate authority' in relation to a national permit means the authority which is authorised by this Act to grant a public carrier's permit.
(11A) The Government of a State shall reserve in that State certain percentage of national permits for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
(11B) The Government of a State may, having regard to the extent to which persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the community have been granted national permits in that State-
(a) reserve in that State such percentage of national permits, as may be prescribed, for persons belonging to economically weaker sections of the community; or
(b) notwithstanding anything contained in Cl.(b) of sub-sec. (12), give perference, in such manner as may be prescribed, to applications for national permits from such persons.
(11C). The provisions of sub-sections (1B), (1D), (1F) and (1G) of S. 47 shall apply to or in relation to the grant of stage carriage permits under that section."
"63(15). (a) The Central Government may make rules for carrying out the provision of sub-sec. (11).
(b) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely-
(i) the authorisation fee payable for the issue of a national permit;
(ii) the fixation of the laden weight of the motor vehicle;
(iii) the distinguishing particulars or marks to be carried or exhibited in or on the motor vehicle;
(iv) the colour or colours in which the motor vehicle is to be painted;
(v) any matter, not specified in this Act, which shall be borne in mind by the appropriate authority in granting a national permit.
Explanation :-- In this sub-section 'authorisation fee' means the annual fee, not exceeding seven hundred rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the national permit to be used in other States.
3. In pursuance of provisions of sub-sec. (15) of S.63 the Central Government framed Motor Vehicles (National Permits) Rules, 1975. Rule 6 of these Rules, as mentioned above, provides for model condition of nine years, consequence of which is that national permit cannot be granted in respect of motor vehicle which is more than nine years old from the date of its registration and such a permit was to become invalid from the date the vehicle attained the age of nine years, unless it is replaced by new motor vehicle.
4. Old Act was repealed and new Act was enforced with effect from 1-7-1989. Subsections (12) to (14) of S. 88 of the new Act deal with national permits. These provisions are quoted below:
"(12) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), but, subject to the rules that may be made by the Central Government under sub-sec. (14), the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of goods carriages and the provisions of Ss. 69, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 89 shall, as far as may be apply to or in relation to the grant of national permit.
(13) The appropriate authority shall, in considering an application for a national permit, have regard to the following matters, namely:--
(a) no national permit shall be issued-
(i) to an individual owner so as to exceed five national permits in its own name;
(ii) to a company so as to exceed ten valid national permits in its own name;
(b) the restriction under Cl. (a) regarding the number of permits to be issued shall not apply to the State transport undertakings
(c) in computing the number of permits for the purposes of Cl. (a), the number of permits held by an applicant in the name of any other person and the permits held by any company of which such applicant is a director shall also be taken into account.
(14) (a) The Central Government may make rules for carrying out the provisons of this section
(b) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters namely:--
(i) the authorisation fee payable for the issue of a permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12);
(ii) the fixation of the laden weight of the motor vehicle;
(iii) the distinguishing particulars or marks to be carried or exhibited in or on the motor vehicle;
(iv) the colour or colours in which the motor vehicle is to be painted;
(v) such other matters as the appropriate authority shall consider in granting a national permit.
Explanation:-- In this section,--
(a) "appropriate authority", in relation to a national permit, means the authority which is authorised under this Act to grant a goods carriage permit;
(b) "authorisation fee" means the annual fee, not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in subsections (g) and (12) to be used in other States Subject to the payment of taxes or fee, if any, levied by the States concerned;
(c) "national permit" means a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States, not being less than four in number, including the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application."
5. In exercise of powers conferred by various sections of the new Act, the Central Government, has framed rules known as Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Rules), R. 88, which has already been quoted, has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 88(14)(b)(v) of the new Act and provides for model condition of nine years of a motor vehicle to be covered under the national permit and like R. 6 of 1975 Rules it further provides that national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle completes nine years from the date of its initial registration.
6. At the admission stage Central Government filed a counter-affidavit in the leading case and the petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavits in reply thereto. As such, all these writ petitions are being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
7. After the repeal of the old Act, the Central Government has framed new Rules as mentioned above and the learned counsel for the petitioners have rightly stated that R. 6 of the National Permit Rules, 1975, has ceased to exist and what is operative now is R. 88 of the new Rules.
8. Sri L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for some of the petitioners has challenged these Rules on the following grounds:
(i) Central Government cannot frame Rules prescribing the age of the motor vehicle as the power to fix the age of the vehicle has been specifically conferred by S. 59 of the new Act, which can be exercised by means of a notification published in the gazette on the basis of consideration laid down by that section;
(ii) Rule of nine years of model condition for national permit can be enforced at the time of grant of permit but it cannot legally be applied to renewals and cannot make permit invalid, if the vehicle completes nine years after the grant of permit; and
(iii) Rules violates fundamental rights of the petitioners conferred by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and are not saved by Cl. (6) of that Article.
9. National permits are granted for goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous State not being less than four. Goods traffic on the high way being heavy and the movement of goods carriage under national permit to spread over the whole country a new model vehicle will be more safer than the vehicles which are of old model. Model conditions of these vehicles are meant,for public safety and smooth movement of the goods throughout the territory of India. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 800 : (1980 All LJ 352), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the seven years' model condition of mini buses. Relevant passages from the said judgment are extracted below:
"The State must remember that it has responsibilities, not merely to minibus owners, but also to avoid the daily tragedies on the Indian highways under the lethal wheels of these whirling carriages. S. 51(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is geared to public safety, not private profit and casts a solemn duty not to be deterred by any pressure except the pressure of social justice to Indian lives moving in buses, walking on roads or even standing on margins. If the top killer road accident-is to be awarded death sentence, S.51 and like provisions must receive severe enforcement.
xx xx xx The State's neglect in this area of policing public transport is deplorable but when it does act by prescribing a condition the Court cannot be persuaded into little legalism and harmful negativism. The short question is whether the prescription that the bus shall be at least a seven-year old model one is relevant to the condition of the vehicle and its passengers' comparative safety and comfort on our chaotic highways. Obviously, it is. The older the model, the less the chances of the latest safety measures being built into the vehicle. Every new model promote comfort. Every new model assures its age to be young, fresh and strong, less likely to suffer sudden failures and breakages, less susceptible to wear and tear and mental fatigue leading to unexpected collapse. When we buy a car or any other machine why do we look for the latest model? Vintage vehicles are good for centenarian display of the curious and cannot but be mobile menaces on our notoriously neglected highways. We have no hesitation to hold, from the point of view of the human rights of road users, that the condition regarding the model of the permitted bus is within jurisdiction, and not to prescribe such safety clauses is abdication of statutory duty."
The aforesaid decision of Subhash Chandra was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Bhatia v. State of U.P., AIR 1983 SC 988 and a similar model condition was upheld.
10. There is no doubt that fixation of the age of the motor vehicle for national permit is for providing safety to the users of the highways and their properties and for smooth movement of goods from one place to another. Such a condition is undoubtedly in public interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners has however, contended that in view of the provisions of S. 59 State cannot frame rules providing for age for motor vehicles for national permit, because age has to be fixed by means of notification in the gazette. In short the argument is that Government cannot fix age-limit of a vehicle by means of rules, but it can be so by publishing a notification. The said section is quoted below:
"59. Power to fix the age limit of motor vehicle. (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the public safety, convenience and objects of this Act, by notification in the Official Gazette specify the life of a motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), the Central Government may, having regard to the purpose of a motor vehicle, such as, display or use for the purpose of a demonstration in any exhibition, use for the purposes of technical research or taking part in a vintage car rally, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt, by a general or special order, subject to such conditions as may be specified in such notification, any class or type of motor vehicle from the operation of sub-sec. (1) for the purpose to be stated in the notification.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 56, no prescribed authority or authorized testing station shall grant a certificate of fitness to a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of any notification issued under sub-sec. (1)."
11. Section 59 of the new Act empowers the Central Government to specify the life span of motor vehicle reckoned from the date of manufacture after the expiry of which the vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The consequence of which is that after the expiry of the life of the vehicle in accordance with the notification of the Central Government the vehicle shall not be granted a fitness certificate and cannot be used for any purpose except those specified under sub-sec. (2) of S. 59, such as, for diaplay, demonstration in exhibition, technical research or participation in vintage car rally. S. 59 as such, provides for fixation of the age of a motor vehicle after which the vehicle is legally dead, incapable of being used for any purpose. In short, after the expiry of period specified by notification under S. 59 of the new Act, the vehicle reaches the end of life and is dead, incapble of being used in any public place. R. 88 on the other hand does not provide for the life span of the vehicle and its only effect is that a vehicle, which is more than nine years old, cannot be used under a national permit. Unlike S. 59 of the new Act. R. 88 does not make a vehicle legally dead after the expiry of nine years and it continues to hold valid registration and fitness certificates and remains fit for being used in any public place for carriage of goods. This Rule, as mentioned above, does not purport to prescribe life span of motor vehicle but only prohibits its use after nine years under national permit. Such a vehicle is, however, liable to be used under agoods carrier permits granted by the transport authorities under S. 79 of the new Act for carriage of goods. R. 88 merely provides for model condition of a vehicle for use under national permit and it is condition No. 18 of mini buses, which was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above. The object and the purpose of the two provisions -- S. 59 and R. 88 are different and there is no conflict between the two. S. 59 finds place in Chapter IV of the new Act, which relates to registration of motor vehicles, whereas S. 88 is in Chapter V relating to control of transport vehicles. S. 59 enables the Government to fix the age of the vehicle, whereas S. 88(14)(b)(v) empowers the Central Government to frame rules providing for matters, which shall be considered by the transport authorities in granting national permits. R. 88 has been framed in exercise of powers conferred on the Government by the aforesaid provisions of S. 88(14)(b)(v) and this rule does not permit to lay down the age of the vehicle in the sense in which it is used in S. 59. Although the title of R. 88 uses the word 'age' but it is only "for the purpose of national permit". The rule does not do anything else except to fix model condition of nine years for a motor vehicle, which is to operate under a national permit.
12. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for some other petitioners has argued that if on certain matter a special provisions has been enacted, that matter stands excluded from the general provisions and in that connection has placed reliance on well known maxims -- Generalia specialibus non derogant and Generalibus specialia derogant. There cannot be any dispute that it is one of the important rule of interpretation that if the Legislature has made a special provision regarding certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provisions. But in the instant cases, as mentioned above Central Government by framing R. 88 has not prescribed the age of a motor vehicle and by this Rule the Government has fixed only the model condition of nine years for a vehicle, which is to operate under a national permit. The word 'age' in R. 88 has been used with reference to the user of a vehicle under a national permit. S. 59 does not deal with prescription of model condition and the Government was fully justified to provide that a vehicle under national permit should not be more than nine years old. As has been mentioned here-in-before, R. 88 is like condition No. 18, which was upheld in the two Supreme Court decisions of Subhash Chandra (AIR 1980 SC 800) and S. K. Bhatia (AIR 1983 SC 988) (supra). As the impugned rule does not deal with the matter provided for in S. 59, the aforesaid maxims cannot be applied in the instant cases.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the age is fixed under S. 59 of the Act, it can be done by the Government after having regard to public safety, convenience and object of the Act, whereas no such safeguard and criteria have been laid down in Cl. (v) of sub-sec. (14)(b) of S. 88 under which R. 88 has been framed. Under sub-sec. (14) of R. 88 Central Government has been authorised to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of that section. Sub-sec. (14)(b)(v) empowers the Central Government to frame rules providing for such matters as the appropriate authority shall consider in granting the national permit. As the rules are framed for carrying out the provisions of the section relating to grant of national permits, factors like public safety, convenience and other allied matters are implicit and are to be read in the provisions authorising the Government to frame rules. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit to frame rules. Central Government before this Court, it is clear that the Government has framed these Rule, keeping in view the road safety and smooth movement of goods by road and after consultation with various associations of transporters and representatives of various Government Departments.
14. Regarding the second submission, our attention has been invited to Cl. (2) of R. 88, whereby it has been provided that a national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date the vehicle completes nine years from the date of initial registration. Learned counsel has submitted that on the basis of this provision the transport authorities are declining the renewal of national permit unless the vehicle which has completed nine years is replaced by a new one. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is not open to the Government to provide by rules for cancellation of permit or refusal of renewal and in that connection, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mohammad Wasim v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 All 112. In this case a Division Bench of this Court has upheld seven years' model condition of mini buses and has declared R. 63(b)(1) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules as ultra vires on the ground that rule travels beyond the Act inasmuch as it authorises the transport authorities to reject application for replacement of the vehicle on a ground not contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case this Court was not dealing with the provisions like R. 88(2). The object of Cl. (2) of R. 88 is to enforce the model condition of nine years provided for by Cl. (1) and if this Rule of nine years is to be enforced for protecting the public, a permit cannot be allowed to remain valid after the vehicle completes nine years unless it is replaced by another vehicle of less than nine years old. The provisions of Cl. (2) is fully justified and valid and the transport authorities will also be justified in declining the renewal of national permit unless the old vehicle of more than nine years old is replaced by a vehicle which is less than nine years old.
15. As regards the third plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the violation of fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that an operator is entitled to carry on the business of goods carriage as long as the vehicle is duly registered and is carrying a fitness certificate and prohibition of use of a vehicle which is duly registered and has a valid fitness certificate is unwarranted and violative of fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and is not saved by Cl. (6) of the said Article. In this connection it may be mentioned that R. 88 does not prohibit the use of the vehicle after nine years and what actually it does is to prevent its use under national permit after it completed nine years. Such a vehicle after nine years can still be used for carriage of goods on the basis of the permit granted under S. 79 of the new Act. Even if a motor vehicle is duly registered and has a valid fitness certificate State can still fix a model condition/age of a vehicle as an additional requirement. A similar question came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Subhash Chandra (AIR 1980 SC 800) (supra), relevant passage of which is extracted below (Para 6) :
"The unreported ruling in Civil Writ No. 7317 of 1975 interprets S. 38 of the Act and the non-issuance of the fitness certificate because the model was not recent enough. May be, the vehicle, regardless of the year of its make, may be fit and the refusal to certify fitness merely because it is old may not always be right. But we see no conflict between a vehicle being fit to ride and the condition, as an additional requirement and safety factor, in the shape of the year of the model. This is an extra measure, a further insurance against machine failure and cannot contradict the 'fitness' provision."
16. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi has further argued that (i) these rules suffer from lack of classification and are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, (ii) the rules are per se unreasonable, (iii) there are no reasons and materials so as to justify the framing of these rules by the Government for fixing nine years model condition of a vehicle for national permit, and (iv) as rule applies to the 'goods carriage' it could be extended to "heavy goods Vehicles", which includes a tractor or a road roller.
17. Regarding the plea of lack of classification learned counsel has argued that there are different kinds of vehicles made by different technology and by clubbing all these vehicles together for fixation of the period of nine years for operation under national permit, the Government bas failed to make a reasonable classification and has thus violated Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection our attention has been invited to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the supplementary affidavit and the book of 'Automobile Engineering' by T. R. Banga and Nathu Singh, extract of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit. On the basis of the aforesaid material the difference between goods carriages known as Tata Mercedes Benz and Ashoka Leyland has been pointed out. The difference between the aforesaid two vehicles pointed out is that bore of Tata's goods carriage is 90 mm. while that of Leyland 103.38 mm. and their strokes and cubic capacity are also said to be different. There are also some other minor differences between the two vehicles. It is true that national permits are granted for the aforesaid two vehicles -- Tata Mercedes Benz and Ashoka Leyland. There is likely to be some difference between the vehicles produced by two different manufactuers. Classification is to be viewed liberally and not meticulously. There is no gross disparity between the two vehicles. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the Government has framed R. 6 under the old Act after deliberation with various associations of transporters and representatives of various Government Departments. R. 88 is analogous to old Rule 6. It is not feasible to fix different model condition for each vehicle produced by each manufactures and a standard condition has to be fixed on the basis of the over all working of the vehicles. This is exactly what the Government has done while framing these Rules. As mentioned above, there is no vital disparity between the two types of vehicles for which national permits are granted and in our opinion the rules do not suffer from lack of classification.
18. Another argument raised by Sri Dwivedi is that the impugned rules are per se unreasonable and in this connection has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Bhan, (1983) 47 Fac LR 209: (AIR 1983 SC 803) and Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, AIR 1981 SC 1829. In Chandra Bhan's case the Rule which prescribed Re. 1 /-per month as subsistence allowance was declared as unfair and unreasonable being illusory inasmuch as Re. 1/- per month cannot be said to be subsistence allowance and was as such shocking to the judicial consciousness. In the case of Air India(supra) certain regulation of Air India Employees Service Regulations was declared ultra vires being arbitrary and unfair and as such violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the instant cases the impugned rule is fair and reasonable as it has fixed age of nine years for a motor vehicle, which is to operate under national permit throughout the territory of India. Such a condition has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of mini buses, reference of which has been given in the earlier part of this judgment. The model condition fixed by the impugned rule is not only fair and reasonable but also necessary and imperative for protecting the people and the property on the highway and also for smooth movement of goods.
19. As regards the plea pertaining to the reasons and material so as to justify the framing of these rules, it may be mentioned that the Central Government in Us counter-affidavit, filed before this Court in these cases, has averred inter alia that with the increase of population, change in the road transport technology, pattern of passengers and freight movement and development of roads in net work in the country the question for making rules for smooth transport facilities in the country was engaging the attention of the Central Government and in that connection the Government has held deliberations with various associations of transportes and representatives of various Government Departments; that national permits for goods carriages are designed for operation involving long distance inter-State road transport covering the whole country and in any case not less then four States and vehicles conducting such long journeys face problems of frequent break-down and in order to maintain smooth goods movement in the country and to ensure public safety R. 6 of National Permit Rules, 1975 was framed. This rule initially provided that national permit shall not be granted in respect of motor vehicle, which is more than four years old on the date of grant of national permit or is more than nine years old at any other point of time. It is also stated that in 1986 R. 6 was amended after the Government decided to abolish the zonal permit system and removal of quota restrictions in respect of the national permits and after amendment the nine years model condition right from beginning was fixed under R.6. In this connection, it is alleged by the Government that before making the amendment objections were invited from all concerned and after considering all these objections, necessary amendment was made in R. 6 prescribing nine years model condition right from the beginning for vehicles under national permit. It is further averred by the Government that R. 88 of the new Rules being analogous to old R. 6 was framed under the new Act after the repeal of the old Act for the same reasons and grounds on account of which old R. 6 was framed.
20. In this connection learned Senior Standing Counsel of the Central Government has placed before us (i) a report of Road Safety Committee of the Government of India as reproduced by Transport Department, Rajasthan in March, 1987, (ii) report of the National Transport Policy Committee, (iii) Final Report on Vehicle Fleet Modernisation, and (iv) report of the Working Group on the Review of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the report of Road Safety Committee, data relating to growth of road and rail traffic and road accidents have been compiled. According to this report, so far as freight traffic by road is concerned as compared to the year 1950-51, it has gone up in the year 1981-82 by 18 times, whereas freight traffic by rail has gone up by 2.9 times during the same period. From the chart of accidents given in this report, it is clear that in India the number of accidents per ten thousand vehicles are highest. The figure given in this chart is based on the data collected in 1979. On page 86 of this report, detail about the road accidents in this country has been given, according to which there is increase every year in road accidents in India, resulting in death and injury of a large number of persons, e.g., in 1960 the number of accidents have been shown as 55,500 and number of persons killed and injured are 5,100 and 33,700 respectively;
Whereas in the year 1981 the number of accidents are 1,53,400 and number of persons killed and injured are 26,500 and 1,18,000 respectively. These are the figures up to the year 1981. Number of road accidents by now must have gone up very high, resulting death and injuries of a very large number of persons as compared to the earlier years. In this connection, it has been stated in the report that operators in our country do not give adequate attention to preventive maintenance and transport authorities also do not undertake proper checking of the vehicles and the issue of fitness certificate has become merely a ritual as the vehicles are not subjected to thorough checking for detecting deficiencies, which would cause accidents. Relevant passage from page 11 of this report is extracted below:
Para 212 : "The operators in our country do not bestow adequate attention to preventive maintenance. The vehicle which is a complex mechanism, being an assemblage of several thousand components and assemblies would need periodic checking and need replacement of worn-out parts and components. Unfortunately, the operators being guided by cost considerations only do not undertake preventive maintenance and when the replacement of any parts becomes absolutely inevitable, they take recourse to the fitment of spurious or sub-standard parts. When this is done in respect of critical items like Brake and Brake Parts, Clutch and Clutch Parts, Connecting Road Bolts etc. the vehicle is rendered highly accident prone. The transport authorities also do not undertake proper checking of the vehicles and the issue of fitness certificates has become merely a ritual as the vehicles are not subjected to thorough checking for detecting deficiencies which would cause accidents. Adequate repair and maintenance workshops also do not exist."
21. In the report of Vehicle Fleet Modernisation, utilisation of vehicles on the national and State highway net work has been given, according to which average annual kilo-metrages on national and State highways has been estimated to 66-70 thousand for trucks and 69 thousand for Buses and average age of truck and the Bus fleet for inter-State operation has been reckoned at 8.7 years and 9.4 years respectively. It has further been mentioned that over-loading of trucks in our country is predominant feature of the primary road net work. In the report of National Transport Policy Committee an important aspect of fuel economy in road transport has been highlighted and in this connection timely replacement of over-aged vehicles and plying or relatively younger vehicles for long distance traffic has been recommended.
22. In view of the reports mentioned above and for the reasons given in the counter-affidavit, Government was fully justified in fixing the age/model condition of nine years of vehicles for use under national permit and it cannot be said that there was no reasons or material with the Government for framing the impugned rules. In fact from the perusal of the aforesaid reports and the reasons given in the counter-affidavit of the Government, we are satisfied that the Government was fully justified in fixing the age limit of nine years of a vehicle for operation under national permit.
23. Regarding the applicability of the rule to "heavy goods vehicle" which includes a tractor or road roller, it may be mentioned that this controversy does not arise in instant case. None on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out that they are the owners of tractor or road roller. As this controversy does not arise in the present cases, it is not necessary for us to decide this question.
24. Miss Swati Dhaon, learned counsel for some of the petitioners has, apart from supporting the submissions made by Sri Naithani and Sri Dwivedi, argued that there is nothing in Section 88(14) of the new Act authorising the Central Government to fix the age or model condition of a transport vehicle for national permit and these rules are as such ultra vires.
25. It is true that Section 88(14) does not expressly authorises the Government to frame rules prescribing model condition of a motor vehicle for operation under a national permit. Section 88(14)(b)(v) empowers the Government to frame rules providing for "such other matters as the appropriate authority shall consider in granting a national permit." By this clause Government can prescribe any relevant matter which should be considered by the transport authorities while granting national permit. Model condition is one of the relevant matters which is to be considered by the transport authorities while granting a national permit. The prescription of model condition as such, is implicit in sub-clause (v) of clause (b) of sub-section (14) of Section 88. Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (AIR 1980 SC 800) (supra) has inferred such a power of fixing model condition in relation to mini buses from Section 51(2)(x), which is quoted below :
Section 51(2)(x) : "Any other condition which may be prescribed."
These rules are perfectly valid and cannot be said to be outside the authority conferred on Central Government by the Act.
26. In our opinion Rule 6 of National Permit Rules, 1975 and Rule 88 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988 are valid.
27. Writ petitions lack merits and are accordingly dismissed. Stay orders passed by this Court are discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
28. Petitions dismissed.