Superintendent of Post Office Vs. Regional Transport Authority & Ors.
EmailKerala Motor Vehicle Rules
Rule 179-A – Fixation of subsidy for carrying mail – Factors for consideration. Held that apart from the space set apart for mail and number of seats and fare to be foregone, transport department can consider all other relevant circumstances. No interference in orders of High Court. (Para 4)
1. The only question which arises for consideration relates to the fixation of subsidy payable by the postal department to the transport company who was obliged to carry the mail bags of the appellant.
2. It is a common ground that the transporter is entitled to get remuneration under rule 197-A of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, the relevant portion of which is as follow :
“Carriage of mails in stage carriages :
1. It shall be a condition of every stage carriage permit that the permit holder shall.
(a) carry post mails in the vehicle, when required to do so by the transport department which has issued or counter signed the permit :
(b) xxx xxx xxx
2. The subsidy to be paid by the postal department to the permit holder will be decided by the transport authority in consultation with the holder of the permit and the postal department, having regard to the space set apart for carrying the mails and the number of passenger seats and the fare that had to be foregone in consequence thereof.”
3. In the instant case, the transport department had determined the amount payable as subsidy, but the same was challenged by the appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed and the appeal filed against the same met with the same fate. The High Court has come to the conclusion that sub-rule (2) of rule 179-A cannot be regarded as being exhaustive, namely, that in considering the amount of subsidy to be paid, the only factors which had to be considered by the transport department were with regard to the space set apart for carrying the mail and the number of passenger seats and the fare that would be foregone.
4. The High Court, in our opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that these of course were factors which had to be taken into consideration, but in arriving at a figure at which the subsidy is to be given, the transport department could consider all relevant circumstances. In the instant case, the High Court noticed that the transport authority had stated that space of four seats would have to be set apart for carrying the mail. The High Court, accordingly, found that the fixation of subsidy was consistent with rule 179-A. This concurrent finding arrived at by the single judge and the division bench upholding the determination by the transport authority does not, in our opinion, call for any interference in these appeals. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
5. As no one appear on behalf of the respondents, the appellant would be at liberty to withdraw Rs. 3,000/- which had been deposited by the appellant towards the costs of respondent no. 3.
