Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. has dismissed a series of writ petitions filed by various transport operators and associations, holding that the challenged orders issued by the State Transport Authority and the Transport Commissioner were lawful and in conformity with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The court concluded that the impugned measures, which included mandatory installation of cameras with driver fatigue detection sensors, police clearance certification for owners, drivers, and conductors, and geo-fencing facilities, were introduced in the larger public interest and cannot be invalidated on technical grounds. The court observed that the measures were consistent with statutory provisions and were necessary in light of increasing road accidents and safety concerns.

In a batch of writ petitions numbered WP(C) Nos. 17429, 19931, 25842, 22767, 22700, 19647, 18217, 15942, 15181, 16924 and 12378 of 2025, the petitioners comprised stage carriage operators, tourist taxi operators, and educational institution bus operators. They challenged the decisions of the State Transport Authority (STA) dated 24 January 2025 and a circular of the Transport Commissioner dated 28 April 2025. The decisions mandated installation of cameras with driver fatigue detection sensors, the production of police clearance certificates (PCC) for registered owners, drivers, and conductors, and the installation of geo-fencing facilities with recorders.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable Where Suit Property Purchased From Third Party and Not Judgment-Debtor

The petitioners argued that the STA had acted without notice or opportunity for hearing, in violation of Rules 123 and 140 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. They contended that under Section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, only the State Government possessed rule-making powers, and the STA could not impose conditions beyond statutory provisions. Specific reference was made to Section 72(2) of the Act, which allows imposition of conditions but requires prior notice of not less than one month to permit holders. The petitioners alleged that this procedure was not followed.

It was contended that the Transport Commissioner’s circular of 28 April 2025, which directed that PCCs be obtained for drivers, conductors, and door assistants, was arbitrary and beyond statutory authority. Petitioners stated operational difficulties, including scarcity of employees due to the PCC requirement. In WP(C) No. 19931 of 2025, counsel argued that the circular’s insistence on producing PCC and proof of welfare fund contributions was impracticable and would interrupt operations. In WP(C) No. 25842 of 2025, petitioners challenged a notice dated 22 May 2025 from the Regional Transport Officer requiring PCCs as a condition for acceptance of statutory applications.

Further arguments were made in WP(C) No. 19647 of 2025 that the decision was vitiated for want of notice, citing Mohammed v. R.T.O Malappuram [1992 (2) KLT 781]. Counsel submitted that the Act and Rules already provide a framework for licensing, disqualification, and revocation, with mandatory procedures for notice and hearing. They argued that imposing PCC requirements supplanted the statutory scheme, denying licensed drivers and conductors’ employment without due process. Concerns were raised about PCCs treating mere involvement in proceedings as disqualifications, thereby infringing the right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

In WP(C) No. 12378 of 2025, counsel argued that stakeholders were not heard and cited Premlal v. Government of Kerala [2004 (3) KLT 48], to contend that the STA acted without authority. In WP(C) No. 15181 of 2025, filed by a Headmaster of an educational institution, objection was raised against mandatory installation of cameras in school buses. In WP(C) No. 18217 of 2025, counsel submitted that Rule 153 and 153A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules already provided sufficient safeguards, making additional requirements unnecessary. In WP(C) Nos. 22700 and 22767 of 2025, counsel argued the lack of power and absence of hearing.

The petitioners generally sought to quash the STA decision of 24 January 2025 and the Transport Commissioner’s circular of 28 April 2025, along with consequential notices. They argued that the measures were ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, unconstitutional, and impractical to implement.

Opposing the writ petitions, the Senior Government Pleader submitted that the STA had ample powers under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the measures were issued in the public interest to ensure safety and convenience of the travelling public. It was argued that PCC requirements affected employees, not vehicle owners, and therefore claims of lack of notice by owners could not be sustained. It was submitted that the measures were proportionate responses to increasing road accidents and harassment complaints, and were policy measures not ordinarily subject to judicial review unless manifestly illegal or unconstitutional.

The Government relied on several precedents, including Calicut Islamic R.H.S School v. STA [2004 KHC 807], Surinder Singh v. Central Government [1986 (4) SCC 667], Uttam T. Dhumal v. Regional Transport Authority, Pune [2002 SCC Online Bom 803], Kerala State Private Bus Operators’ Federation v. Transport Commissioner [W.P.(C) No. 36842 of 2023], Kerala Bus Transport Association v. State of Kerala [W.A. No. 2030 of 2024], Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. [1980 KHC 639], Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association v. Regional Transport Authority [2015 (1) KHC 156], Raghavan v. R.T.O. Kollam [2001 (2) KLT 209], Sukumaran E.S v. State of Kerala [2006 KHC 3742], Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. [1987 KHC 982], and M.K. Aravindakshan v. RTO [WP(C) No. 27379/2013].

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. addressed the issues raised. On the contention regarding mandatory camera installation, the court recorded that the requirement was extended after consultations: “The requirement of installing three surveillance cameras, at the front, rear, and interior of all educational institution buses, which was initially made effective from 01.04.2025 pursuant to the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 24.01.2025, was subsequently extended taking note of the objections raised in the meeting held on 30.05.2025. All stakeholders, including representatives of unaided schools and school vehicle operators, were invited and allowed to express their concerns.” The court further noted that the requirement would take effect from 01.08.2025 and become part of fitness and permit conditions.

The court rejected arguments on lack of notice, stating: “In a matter of policy or introducing regulatory measures, the petitioners need not be heard at all. Rule 123 and Rule 140 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules only require notice to persons who are reasonably likely to be affected by the issues under consideration, in the opinion of the transport authorities, and only those who have a right to be heard are entitled to make representations under Rule 128. The permit holders have no right of representation against regulatory measures/policy decisions issued in the public interest.”

Quoting Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. [1987 KHC 982], the court extracted: “Those who are most vitally affected are the consumer public. It is for their protection that price-fixation is resorted to and any increase in price affects them as seriously as any decrease does a manufacturer, if not more.” The court applied this principle to regulatory measures in transport.

On the powers of STA under Sections 67 and 68 of the Act, the court stated: “Section 68 signifies that the powers of the State Government and those of the STA are intended to coexist, with the latter being subordinate to the former. The phrase 'subject to rules' carries significant weight in this context.” The court referred to Surinder Singh and Uttam T. Dhumal to hold that framing of rules was not a condition precedent and STA could exercise powers independently in public interest.

The court cited Kerala State Private Bus Operators’ Federation v. Transport Commissioner, where it was held: “It is the duty of the State to maintain and protect every citizen and to ensure their safety. The power of the State to issue directives to safeguard the interest of the citizen is recognised under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, and is also not inconsistent with the object of the Motor Vehicles Act.”

On the specific rules, the court observed: “Rule 153 shows that the permit holders are to exercise control and assume responsibility for the conduct of the employees and conformity with the Act and Rules in the operations of the vehicle, and the conduct of the employees certainly takes within its fold the consideration of their criminal antecedents as well.” The court also noted that licensing provisions already contemplated inquiries into antecedents.

Citing the Karnataka High Court decision on police verification, the court recorded: “The grant and refusal to grant and the revocation of a license is dependent upon the antecedents of the driver, and hence, before a license is granted to a driver and even thereafter, a police verification can be carried out.”

The court concluded that PCC requirements were consistent with the statutory scheme: “The requirement of police verification of the antecedents cannot be said to be antithetical to the scheme in the Act or the Rules. Far from that, the instrumentalities of the State would be neglecting their statutory duties if they did not hold the permit holders responsible for ensuring the conformity of their operations with the laws of the land.”

Addressing arguments on liberalisation, the court held: “The measures are admittedly aimed at public interest, and when pitted against public interest, the right, if any, accorded to individual permit holders must give way.” The court further observed: “In a State where there were 1017 numbers of accidents involving the stage carriages between 2023 to 2025 and more of them being reported almost every other day, measures introduced by the State to curb or reduce such incidents are not only in conformity with the Act and its Rules, but are also rooted in public interest.”

In its final directions, the court unequivocally upheld the orders issued by the STA and the Transport Commissioner. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. recorded: “Given the above, based on the statutory provisions and the judgments of in Uttam T. Dhumal & Others, Calicut Islamic R.H.S School, Surinder Singh, The Kerala State Private Bus Operators' Federation & Ors. (Supra) and it's Writ Appeal Kerala Bus Transport Association and another (Supra) and Raghavan (Supra), the STA had ample power to come up with the measures suggested in the orders impugned, and the argument on lack of power is only to be rejected.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Conviction Under Section 292 IPC Set Aside | Judge Must Personally View Alleged Obscene Material to Constitute Substantive Evidence

The court further held: “Such measures cannot be stultified on the strength of hyper-technical arguments. The impugned orders are lawful and perfectly in line with the Act and Rules.” Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions: “Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.”

Through these concluding remarks, the Bench affirmed the legality and validity of the STA’s decision dated 24 January 2025, the Transport Commissioner’s circular dated 28 April 2025, and consequential notices, while dismissing all challenges raised by the petitioners.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. Asok Kumar K.P., Shri. Abdul Hameed Rafi, Shri. Rakesh S Menon, Sri. Rilgin V. George, Shri. K.T. Raveendran, Smt. Akshara K.P., Smt. Meera J. Menon, Smt. Arathy P.S., Smt. Anagha Manoj, Sri. M.R. Anison, Shri. Prasad Chandran, Smt. P.A. Rinusa, Smt. Annie Jacob, Smt. Dona Margret P.R., Smt. Anagha Renjith V.R., Smt. M.U. Soorya, Smt. S. Sreeja, Sri. P. Mohandas (Ernakulam), Sri. K. Sudhinkumar, Sri. Sabu Pullan, Sri. Gokul D. Sudhakaran, Shri. R. Bhaskara Krishnan, Shri. Bharath Mohan, Dr. K.P. Satheesan (Sr.), Shri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, Smt. Nazrin Banu, Shri. K.V. Gopinathan Nair, Sri. O.D. Sivadas.

For the Respondents: Sr. Government Pleader Smt. Surya Binoy, Sreejith V.S.

Case Title: Kerala Taxi Drivers Organization & Connected Cases v. State of Kerala & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:65709

Case Number: WP(C) No. 17429 of 2025 & connected cases

Bench: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.