TN opposes changes to motor vehicle bill

Chennai: Tamil Nadu has opposed more than 20 major changes proposed by the Centre under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016.
During the South India Transport Council (SITCo) meeting on Friday, Tamil Nadu transport minister M R Vijayabaskar, along with transport ministers and senior officials from Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana and Maharashtra, passed a resolution demanding the rollback of these proposed amendments since they were against federalism.

The resolution was forwarded to the Union road transport and highways ministry for consideration, according to a copy of the minutes of the meeting accessed by TOI.

Besides this, pending issues pertaining to inter-state transportation of goods and people were also discussed at the meeting held in Bengaluru on Friday, said a senior official in the state transport department.

“For instance, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh had earlier requested TN to allow operation of their spare buses with special permits in the state. This issue was settled amicably,” the official told TOI.

Tamil Nadu was keen on opposing proposed amendments which would weaken the state transport corporations, the minutes show.

The bill allows private operators to secure more than one permit and operate on routes of their choosing. “Allowing private bus operators to use permits at their own discretion will affect public interest as they would start operating buses only along economical routes. Consequently, state transport corporations will be put at a disadvantage,” the official added.

The state has continued operation of government buses along nearly 8,000 uneconomical routes despite huge losses and if the proposed changes come into effect, the losses would shoot up, said experts. TN also agreed to make necessary changes for stricter implementation of rules concerning registration of passenger vehicles with a seating capacity of more than 10. Under the bill, testing agencies should confirm the cancellation of fitness certificates by regional transport offices which must bear the testing costs if the cancellation is not confirmed. All the five states opposed this.