Coimbatore Consumer Cause v. State of Tamil Nadu

5. M/s.Prakash Art (P) Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager Mr.Yogan, Real Towers No.2, 2nd Floor, No.51/52, Royapettah High Road, Chennai-600 004.6. M/s.Chennai Digital Print Advertisement (P) Ltd., 1/6, Triplicane High Road, Triplicane, Chennai-5.(Respondent No.3 was impleaded as per orders dated 6.8.2009 in M.P.No.1 of 2009)(Respondents 4 to 6 were impleaded as per orders dated 2.11.2009 in M.P.Nos.2 to 4 of 2009) ..RespondentsWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsto initiate appropriate action against the violation of Rule 343 ofthe Tamilnadu Motor Vehicles Rules with regard to the prohibition ofadvertisements on buses, both Government and private, in the entireState of Tamilnadu, within a time limit stipulated by this Court andissue appropriate orders to remove all such illegal advertisements.For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Sreenivasan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 : Mr.Kalyana Raman, for M/s.Jayesh B.Dolia for R3. : Mr.Gnana Desikan for Mr.T.S.Venkateshan for R4 to R6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ JUDGMENTR.SUDHAKAR,J.This Writ Petition is filed in public interest praying to issuea Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriateaction against the violation of Rule 343 of the Tamilnadu MotorVehicles Rules with regard to the prohibition of advertisements onbuses, both Government and private, in the entire State of Tamilnadu,within a time limit stipulated by this Court and issue appropriateorders to remove all such illegal advertisements.2. According to the petitioner, the buses operated by Stateowned Corporations and private carriages are displayingadvertisements on the exterior portion of the bus on all sides. Theadvertisements and display are in violation of Rule 343 of the TamilNadu Motor Vehicles Rules. It distracts the road users and thedrivers of the other vehicles resulting in accident. For betterappreciation of the issue, in the present case, it will beappropriate to refer Rule 343 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Ruleswhich reads as follows:-"343. Advertisement:- (a) No illuminated orother advertisement shall be carried or displayedon any motor vehicle except with the permission inwriting of, and subject to such conditions andrestrictions as may be imposed by, the TransportAuthority which has issued the permit in the caseof a transport vehicle having valid permit or theRegistering Authority in whose jurisdiction thevehicle is normally kept in the case of othermotor vehicle;Provided that any permission granted underthis rule shall be without prejudice to rule 106of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989;Provided further that no such permission isnecessary if the vehicle does not carry or displaythe advertisement for hire or reward and theadvertisement is not illuminated;Provided also that in the case of stagecarriage, no advertisement shall be carried,except inside the vehicle and rear portion ofexterior body.(b) Notwithstanding anything contained insub-rule(a), the Government may authorise the useof motor vehicle for carrying or displayingilluminated or non-illuminated advertisement for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ hire or reward on a specified route or routes orin a specified area within the State generally, orfor any specified purpose and specified period.(c) The fee for granting permission undersub-rule (a) shall be as prescribed in the Tableunder rule 368 for each advertisement for periodnot exceeding one year."It is further submitted that no advertisement of any kind can bedisplayed on the front or back glass screens of the vehiclesresulting in braking of light contrary to the rules. In this regardRule 100(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 has beenreferred to and it reads as follows:-"(2) The glass of the windscreen and rearwindow of every motor vehicle shall be such andshall be maintained in such a condition that thevisual transmission of light is not less than 70%.The glasses used for side windows are such andshall be maintained in such condition that thevisual transmission of light is not less than 50%and shall conform to Indian Standards."3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the attentionof the court the advertisements that are carried or displayed on themotor vehicles contrary to the above stated rules. It is statedthat the competent authority has not granted the permission inwriting with or without conditions, restrictions for display of theadvertisements. In any event, it is stated that in many of thevehicles run by the State and the private operators, the glass windowscreens are covered by advertisements which not only restricts thetransmission of the light into the vehicle and is a source of majordistraction to the other road users, particularly, drivers of theother vehicles. In this context, the present writ petition has beenfiled.4. At the time of hearing of the case, the petitioner broughtto the attention of the court the letter of the District Collector,Coimbatore in response to the information sought for under the Rightto Information Act 2005 wherein it has been clearly stated that nopermission was granted by the Regional Transport Office to the Stateowned or private bus to display advertisement on the exterior body.The petitioner also enclosed copies of news paper publications whichhave highlighted the danger caused to the road safety by display ofcatchy advertisement which are displayed in violation of the abovestated rules.5. In this background of the case, this Court passed thefollowing order on 6.8.2009:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The first respondent-State of Tamil Naduand the second respondent-Transport Commissionerhaving been impleaded as party-respondents to theWrit Petition, it is not necessary to implead therest of the Transport Corporation as party-respondents, as third respondent-Tamil Nadu StateTransport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd., isallowed to be impleaded as party-respondent vide- M.P.No.1 of 2009, today and directions as maybe given by this court, are to be impleaded byall the Motor vehicle owners (Bus owners)irrespective of the Transport Corporations, andthey are bound to follow the directions as may beissued by this court to be implemented by thesecond respondent-Transport Commissioner.The second respondent-Transport Commissionerand the third respondent-Transport Corporationare allowed time to file affidavit and state asto whether any of the Motor Vehicles, includingthe Buses, are violating Rule 343 of the TamilNadu Motor Vehicles Rules by displayingadvertisement in the front or rear or sideglasses of the respective vehicles.The respondents 2 & 3 may file affidavit andgive the time frame by which such advertisements,if any, displayed in one or other vehicle (Bus)shall be removed." This was followed by another order dated 21.10.2009, which reads asfollows:-"Apart from the fact that there is nothing onrecord to suggest that the State Government hasauthorised for display of advertisement indifferent buses/vehicles, in terms with Rule 343(b) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and thatno policy decision taken by the State Governmentas to what extent such advertisement can bedisplayed, it has been brought to the notice ofthe Court that many of the buses/vehicles runningwithin the State are completely painted in allthe sides, except front Wind Screen.In the recent days terrorist activities havebeen noticed in different States and many cases,it has been found that the terrorists have come invehicles likes bus, truck, car, etc. If all thesides of a vehicle like bus is painted, thereby https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not enabling the police officials to find out whoare travelling in the bus, whether such paintingof total body of the bus/vehicle will be in publicinterest or not, is another issue to be determinedin this case.For proper deliberation we direct the SpecialSecretary, Home Department, Transport Commissionerand Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic)Chennai City to appear and assist the Court on thenext date."Another order was passed on 2.11.2009 and it reads as follows:-"Pursuant to the order dated 21st October,2009 Dr.Karuthiah Pandian,I.A.S., SpecialSecretary (Home), Mr.S.Machindranathan,I.A.S.,Transport Commissioner, and Mr.ShekeelAkhthar,I.P.S., Additional Commissioner of Police,Traffic, are present before Court today. Thematter has been discussed. The learned AdvocateGeneral on behalf of the Officers and the Statesubmit that the State Government is seriouslythinking of laying down some guidelines withregard to the display of advertisement board inthe buses and other vehicles keeping in mind therecent terrorist activities which has been noticedin the recent days in different States. If sonecessary it may amend the Tamil Nadu MotorVehicle Rules. 2. In the facts and circumstances, we allow aweek's time to enable the Special Secretary(Home), The Transport Commissioner and theAdditional Commissioner of Police, Traffic, tohold a joint meeting and to lay down a tentativeguideline which may be followed till a finaldecision is taken by the State and necessaryamendment is made."This was followed by another order dated 9.11.2009 which is asfollows:-"An affidavit has been filed on behalf ofthe respondents showing therein the guidelinessuggested to give effect to Rule 343 of the TamilNadu Motor Vehicle Rules. It is stated that ifso necessary to carry out and notify theguidelines, necessary amendment be made in thesaid Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prays for and allowed one day's time to fileaffidavit and state as to what is theirsuggestion with regard to the existing agreementreached between the parties with the TransportCorporation, in the light of the guidelinessuggested by the State."6. In response to the various orders of this Court as above,the Special Secretary to Government, Home Department filed anaffidavit dated November, 2009 setting out the policy decision takenby the Government with regard to display of advertisement on thevehicles and other corrective measures that are contemplated. Therelevant portion is as follows:-"8. It is submitted that the objectives ofthe policy on display of advertisements should bethe following:-(a) Road Safety, which is ensured by enabling thedriver to have a clear front rear and sideview.(b) Security of the passengers, by enabling policeand enforcement officials to clearly see whatis happening inside the bus.(c) Revenue generation for the bus operators.9. It is submitted that it will be necessaryto evolve certain guidelines subject to theprovisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 in order to achieve the objectives. Thefollowing guidelines, therefore, are suggestedand submitted before this Hon'ble Court, forimplementation:-(i) There should be no advertisements in thefront wind screen or rear window or sidewindows of the vehicles since this will be acontravention of the Central Motor VehiclesRules, 1989.(ii) Advertisements may be allowed inside thevehicle and rear portion of the exterior bodyof the buses as already provided under Rule343(a) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,1989.(iii) Permission to display advertisements on theexterior side may be considered on body panel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sheets. If there are glass panels above thewindows on the sides of the vehicle display ofadvertisements on such panels may also beconsidered. To operationalise this newprovision amendment is warranted to Rule 343of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.(iv) The Transport Corporation/Bus operatorsshould get proper permission from the RegionalTransport Authority as per Rule 343 of theTamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.(v) Regional Transport Authorities should ensurethat advertisements are not offensive, obsceneand are not a cause for major distraction tothe other road users. (vi) All the advertisements displayed incontravention of these guidelines should beremoved by the operators. In case ofcontinued violation, the permits of theoperators may be suspended.(vii) To carryout necessary amendments to theTamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 toenforce the above suggestions. 10. It is submitted that the Honourable HighCourt may please consider the above guidelinesand issue necessary directions pending a full-fledged review and amendment of the Tamil NaduMotor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by the Government."7. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore andthree Advertisement Agencies were impleaded on the applications filedby the said parties seeking permission of the court to be heardstating that they have been granted the right to advertise on the busof the Transport Corporation, being the successful bidders in thetender called for, for this purpose. They are the beneficiaries ofthe licence granted by the Transport Corporation to displayadvertisements in one or other place on the bus belongs to theTransport Corporation.8. The private advertisement agencies, the respondents 4 and 5in the writ petition stated that they are beneficiaries of tenderproceedings initiated by the transport corporation. In the case ofthe fourth respondent, M/s.Naveen Advertisers, it is stated thatthey have the licence and they have started to display on the bus atthe rear portion of the exterior body. In the case of the fifthrespondent M/s.Prakash Art (P) Ltd., it is stated that they have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted the tender with earnest money deposit and the work orderwas issued. They have spent money and created infrastructure forthe purpose of display of advertisement. However, in view of thepresent writ petition, they did not proceed further. In the case ofthe sixth respondent M/s.Chennai Digital Print Advertisement (P)Ltd., no affidavit has been filed.9. Rule 343 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules,specifically provides that no illuminated or other advertisementshould be carried or displayed on any motor vehicle except with thepermission in writing and subject to such conditions or restrictionsas may be imposed by the Transport Authority for permit vehicles andin the case of other motor vehicles the permission of registeringauthority. In the case of stage carriage, the specific clause isthat no advertisement shall be carried, except inside the vehicle andrear portion of exterior body. 10. In this case, as has been recorded by this court in theorder dated 21.10.2009, no permission appears to have been given bythe competent authority. In this background, the officialrespondents, the respondents 1 to 3, have sought for time so as totake remedial steps and to formulate a policy and lay down someguidelines with regard to display of advertisement on bus and othervehicles inconsonance with the provision of Tamil Nadu Motor VehiclesRules and the Central Motor vehicles Rules. The affidavit filed bythe Special Secretary to Government, Home Department, which hasalready been extracted above, has clearly set out that there will beno advertisement in the front rear and side windows of the bus andadvertisement will be permitted strictly complying with the Rule 343of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and if required,suitable amendment will be made. Permission will be accorded by thecompetent authority in accordance with rules. The respondents 4 to6, who participated in the tender for display of advertisement onbus, considering the above provision of law and in the interest ofthe road safety have filed an affidavit stating that the guidelinessubmitted by the State can be implemented. They, however, pleadedthat suitable direction may be issued to the Government to reworkthe agreement with regard to display of advertisement.11. The nature of advertisement as could be seen from thevarious newspaper advertisement and the photographs submitted beforethe court which is not disputed by the official respondents, it isclear that the advertisements are being put up on the glass panel ofthe vehicle thereby obstructing the visual transmission of the lightinto the vehicle. Many of the advertisements are likely to distractthe attention of the other road users including the drivers of othervehicles, thereby leading to road accidents. The Tamil Nadu MotorVehicle Rules specifically provides for grant of permission by thecompetent authority and as has been stated no permission with orwithout restriction has been granted by the said authority to any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one of the buses sporting and displaying such advertisement.Therefore, there is a clear violation of rules. 12. In any event, the display of reflective sticker typeadvertisement on the glass panel of the vehicles clearly obstructthe flow of light into the vehicle and it also affect the vision ofthe persons looking from outside the vehicle. This may lead to abuseor misuse by terrorists or such other persons who cause disturbanceor damage to public and public vehicles. It conceals the vision ofpersons inside the vehicle and as stated earlier the law enforcementagency will find it difficult to assess the number of persons insidea vehicle unless the vehicle is stopped. This situation happened inthe night of 26.11.2008 at Mumbai when the offenders driving inwindscreen covered vehicles went around the streets of Mumbaishooting at will on the public and the police indiscriminately. Thelaw enforcing authority will not be able to monitor the publicservice vehicles which are used by a large section of the public.The safety and security of the passengers inside the bus will becompromised, particularly, ladies, if they unfortunately happen totravel in the late hours. Keeping this in mind the rules providedfor certain restrictions and permission by the competent authority.There is a clear breach of the above stated rules.13. Road accidents inter alia happens due to lack of attentionor distraction and this is attributed to "eye catchers" inadvertising parlance. This has to be avoided in the interest ofcitizens who are victims and likely victims of road accidents andalso in the interest of the State which spends a huge sum from itstreasury for medical aid to accident victims which otherwise couldhave been used for welfare and development of State. The transportcorporation is made to pay huge amount as compensation by way ofmotor accident claims. The respondents transport corporation whichsuffer huge compensation awards find it difficult to settle. Anarticle highlighting the plight of transport corporations defaultingin settling motor accident compensation awards was published in anational daily recently. This court is of the view that preventivemeasures of any kind, however, small can go a long way in ensuringsafety to the life of individual citizens and save the state ofunwanted expenses. 14. Distraction is diversion of attention and when theattention of the driver of one vehicle is diverted by an eye catchingadvertisement or display then it leads to a series of consequence.As could be seen from the few photographs placed on record, the wholewindscreen contains advertisement relating to personal goods likejewellery, eatables, etc., and the eye catchers are men, women orchildren and the like. If this trend is allowed without control orregulation the time is not far off when the display and advertisementwill extend to other items of personal use. Furthermore,advertisement that are found in private circulation in magazines https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will be out in public domain and that may lead to disastrousconsequence If one obscene or vulgar display is allowed, than oneadvertiser will try to out do another. If reasonablerestrictions are imposed by avoiding inappropriate eye catchers whichmay cause distraction and consequent accidents, the State will besaved of unnecessary expenditure and such preventive measures willsave valuable life.15. From the number of photographs shown by the petitioner, itis clear that there is a violation of rules relating to display onthe glass panel of the vehicles. This will be contrary to the rule100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Furthermore, the competentauthority has also not granted permission in terms of the Tamil NaduMotor Vehicles Rules.16. The law enforcements to say the least should not show anycomplacency in matters of security of State and loose interest inenforcing the law on the premise that public memory is short. Thereis a will to develop infrastructure for the welfare of citizens, butit has to be regulated, sustainted and maintained, if the citizensare to enjoy its fruits. Till such time the guidelines are framed oramendments made the State is directed to ensure that reflective eyecatchers displayed on vehicles which restrict the light into allmotor vehicles in violation of Rule 100 of the Central Motor VehiclesRules should be removed and the rule has to be enforced strictly. 17. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and the Central MotorVehicle Rules no doubt lay down certain guidelines. The world is nowmoving on a fast track and the electronic media including theadvertisement sector is developing new concepts. The Rules andRegulation relating to Motor Vehicles should be alive to the changedcircumstances and developing trends. The authorities will consideramendments as suggested in the affidavit and may also consider and beinspired by other enactments which are relatable to control orregulation of advertisements. The State Government is directed toconsider the amendment of the Rules as suggested by the State beforethis Court.18. Till such time the amendment as suggested is made to therules, the respondents are directed to implement the followingguidelines as suggested by State, in public interest:- (i) There should be no advertisements in the front wind screen orrear window or side windows of the vehicles since this will be acontravention of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.(ii) Advertisements may be allowed inside the vehicle and rearportion of the exterior body of the buses as already providedunder Rule 343(a) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) Permission to display advertisements on the exterior side maybe considered on body panel sheets. If there are glass panelsabove the windows on the sides of the vehicle display ofadvertisements on such panels may also be considered. Tooperationalise this new provision amendment is warranted to Rule343 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.(iv) The Transport Corporation/Bus operators should get properpermission from the Regional Transport Authority as per Rule 343of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.(v) Regional Transport Authorities should ensure that advertisementsare not offensive, obscene and are not a cause for majordistraction to the other road users. (vi) All the advertisements displayed in contravention of theseguidelines should be removed by the operators. In case ofcontinued violation, the permits of the operators may besuspended.(vii) To carryout necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu MotorVehicles Rules, 1989 to implement the above suggestions. (viii) Existing agreement may be amended/or modified to comply withthe direction aforesaid. 19. This Court in public interest and considering the provisionsof the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the Tamil Nadu Motor VehiclesRules further directs as follows:-(i) The reflective light reducing display stickers includingadvertisement stickers, display stickers and the like, which arein violation of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rulesshall not be permitted on the window panel of all motor vehicles.(ii) The first respondent Secretary to Government, Home Departmentand the Secretary to Government, Transport Department is directedto issue suitable direction to all the law enforcing authorityunder their control as well as Police Department are directed toimplement the above direction and the provisions of the Tamil NaduMotor Vehicle Rules and Central Motor Vehicle Rules strictly. 20. Insofar as the respondents 4 to 6 are concerned, they areentitled to work out their agreement with the respective transportcorporation or the authority concerned for relocating theadvertisement in any other exterior part of the vehiclecommensurate with the guidelines suggested and submitted before thiscourt by the Special Secretary to Government, Home Department in theaffidavit dated nil November, 2009. The Government or theauthority shall consider their claim for relocation in accordance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the guidelines submitted and such other guidelines as may beformulated.21. The Court records its appreciation to the petitioner's forumfor its able assistance to the Court in public interest. The WritPetition is ordered as above. The miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarts. To1. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2. The Transport Commissioner, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. Jeyesh B. Dolia, Advocate. S.R.No.63357.+ 1 cc. to Mr. S. Sathia Chandran, Advocate. S.R.No.63171.+ 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.63133. W.P.No.6818 of 2009SP (CO)GSK 08.12.2009.