Himachal Pradesh HC Upholds 15-Year Cap on School Transport Vehicles, Holds Rule Covers Nursing And Pharmacy Institutes Too

The petitioners—schools and other educational institutions—challenged Clause (xi) of Rule 73-A(1)(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, inserted by notification dated 12 October 2018.

The clause provides that vehicles used to transport students to schools must not be more than 15 years old.

The petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment.

Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Central Government to prescribe the statutory life of a motor vehicle, after which it is deemed not to comply with the Act and its rules; Section 96 empowers State Governments to make rules to carry Chapter V into effect, including rules concerning permits; and Section 76(3)(vii) permits prescribed conditions to be attached to private service vehicle permits.

The Court held that a State-imposed restriction on the use of a vehicle for a particular purpose is distinct from fixing the vehicle’s statutory life under Section 59: the State restriction does not prevent the vehicle from being used for another lawful purpose while it remains otherwise eligible for use.

In reviewing subordinate legislation, the Court applied the principles identified in *State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy*, (2006) 4 SCC 517, and *Naresh Chandra Aggarwal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India*, (2024) 13 SCC 241, including whether the rule has a source of power and is consistent with the parent Act.

The Court also referred to the Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling on a comparable school-vehicle age restriction.

The Court found the rule-making power in Section 96, read with the permit framework in Chapter V and Section 76, sufficient to support conditions governing vehicles used to transport students.

It rejected the argument that the rule encroached on Section 59 because Clause (xi) did not declare a vehicle legally unfit after 15 years; it restricted only its use for student transportation, leaving other lawful uses available.

The Court held that student safety justified a preventive age limit and that roadworthiness alone did not have to be the sole criterion; nor did the petitioners’ financial concerns make the rule arbitrary.

Reading Rule 73-A as a whole, it further held that “school” in Clause (xi) covered all educational institutions subject to the rule’s general conditions, not only institutions providing education up to the 10th or 10+2 level.

It further held that Clause (xi) applies to all educational institutions to which Rule 73-A(1)(A)’s general conditions apply.

All petitions were dismissed, interim orders were vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.