Allahabad High Court Upholds Challan For Speeding Above 60 Kmph On Yamuna Expressway, Says State Can Prescribe Lower Speed Limits

The petitioners, operators of stage carriage buses plying between Agra and Noida on the Yamuna Expressway, challenged overspeeding e-challans issued for exceeding the 60 kmph speed limit. They contended that since the Central Government's notification issued under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a maximum speed of 100 kmph for such vehicles on access-controlled expressways, the authorities could not enforce a lower speed limit. They further argued that the e-challans violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the applicable speed limits on the Yamuna Expressway had been fixed by the competent authorities in coordination with the traffic police, keeping in view road safety considerations. It argued that such technical and policy decisions were not amenable to interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the petitioners had neither produced nor challenged any notification or order issued by the competent authority prescribing the 60 kmph speed limit on the relevant stretch. It observed that determining operational speed limits depends upon factors such as the nature of the road, traffic density, visibility and weather conditions, including seasonal fog.

"These are matters of technical assessment which this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, would not substitute by its own assessment," the Bench observed.

Referring to Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court explained that while sub-section (1) prohibits driving beyond the maximum speed notified by the Central Government, sub-section (2) independently authorises the State Government or an authority authorised by it to prescribe lower maximum or minimum speed limits for a particular road or area in the interest of public safety or convenience. The Court held that the statutory framework expressly contemplates different operational speed limits for specific roads or stretches.

Rejecting the constitutional challenge, the Court held that the petitioners had failed to establish any hostile discrimination.

"...speed restrictions imposed in accordance with the statutory framework are regulatory measures intended to ensure road safety and cannot, by themselves, be regarded as an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on business," the Court observed.

The Bench further held that the validity of any individual overspeeding e-challan would depend on the facts of each case, including the applicable speed restriction and the speed recorded by the enforcement mechanism.

"If any particular e-challan has been issued contrary to law, it is always open to the concerned person to avail the statutory remedy available under the Motor Vehicles Act. A blanket direction restraining the respondents from issuing future overspeeding e-challans, as prayed for, cannot be granted," it said.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.