Kerala High Court
Anoop K.A vs Biju Prabhakar on 5 April, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 1 / 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
Friday, the 5th day of April 2024 / 16th Chaithra, 1946
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1728 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 39574/2018
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WP:
1. ANOOP K.A, AGED 41, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOOLIYADEN HOUSE,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PRESIDENT, ALL
KERALA TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
2. SUBIN PAUL, AGED 42, S/O. E.P.PAULOSE, EDAYENAL HOUSE,
KERINAD.P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, SECRETARY, ALL
KERALA TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
BY ADVOCATES M/S. P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN & K.R.PRATHISH.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P:
1. K.R. JYOTHYLAL, (CORRECTED)
SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
R1 IS CORRECTED AS
BIJU PRABHAKAR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2. MR.AJITH KUMAR, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, (SUBSTITUTED)
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
R2 IS SUBSTITUTED AS
S.SREEJITH IPS, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
3. SHAJI MADHAVAN, THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
CENTRAL ZONE-II, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 2 / 22
4. KUNJUMON. K.P, (CORRECTED)
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE ENFORCEMENT,
CENTRAL ZONE-II, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
R4 IS CORRECTED AS
ANANTHAKRISHNAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (SUBSTITUTED)
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE ENFORCEMENT, CENTRAL ZONE-II,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
R4 IS SUBSTITUTED AS
SWAPNA S P, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL TRANPORT OFFICE ENFORCEMENT,
CENTRAL ZONE -II, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030
NAME & DESCRIPTION OF R1 AND NAME OF R4 CORRECTED AS PER
ORDER DATED 17/11/2021 IN IA.2/2021 IN COC.1728/2021.
R2 AND R4 ARE SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/03/2023
IN IA 1/2023 IN COC 1728/2021.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
05.04.2024, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 3 / 22
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
------------------------------
Cont. Case(C)No.1728 of 2021
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this Contempt Case (Civil) invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to issue notice to the respondents herein, frame charges against them, proceed against them, and punish them for willful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 29.07.2019 in W.P.(C)No.39574 of 2018 - Anoop K.A. and another v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC 414].
2. In Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India [(2005) 12 SCC 642] the Apex Court noticed from the reply affidavit filed by the Union of India that overloading causes significant damage to the road surface and also causes pollution through auto emissions. Overloaded vehicles are safety hazards not only for themselves but also for other road users. Before the Apex Court, it was pointed out that since the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is that of the State Government, they have been advised by the Central Government to scrupulously enforce the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. The matter was discussed at the 30th meeting of the Transport Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 4 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 2 Development Council, where the following decisions were taken;
(i) Strict enforcement of the provisions relating to overloading under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
(ii) The State Governments are not to issue special cards/passes which legalise overloading.
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) xxx xxx xxx
(v) Non-renewal of registration and denial of permit to habitual offenders of overloading."
3. In Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414] this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 herein, namely, the State of Kerala and the Transport Commissioner, Kerala, shall take necessary steps, through duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, including respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone-II, Ernakulam and the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, to ensure strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy and also the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 in the State of Kerala, as directed by the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In view of the law laid down in V. Rajendran v. Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur [2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1397], Peethambaran T.R. v. Additional Licensing Authority and another [2012 (3) KHC 917], Ashish Gosain v. Department of Transport and another [AIR 2016 Delhi 162], Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 5 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 3 Ajith v. State of Kerala and others [2017 (1) KHC 328], S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2014) 6 SCC 36], S. Rajaseekaran (2) v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532], and Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India [(2005) 12 SCC 642], and also the directions issued by the Supreme Committee on Road Safety in Ext.P1, in cases in which offences like driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit; carrying overload in goods carriages; driving vehicles under the influence of drinks and drugs; using mobile phone while driving a vehicle; etc. are detected, the duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall forthwith forward the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle to the Licensing Authority, for initiating proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court ordered that stern action shall be taken against the use of goods carriages and trailers in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Section 114 or Section 115 [which deals with power to restrict the use of vehicle] of the Motor Vehicles Act or clause (7) of Rule 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and also for carrying persons in contravention of sub- regulations (2) and (3) of Regulation 32; for carrying load in contravention of sub-regulations (1) and (2) of Regulation 35 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. This Court further ordered that, considering the increase in the number of 'hit and run' accidents Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 6 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 4 reported every year, stern action shall be taken against the use of motor vehicles, including goods carriages and trailers, in contravention of the provisions under Regulation 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, i.e., against the use of motor vehicles on public roads without displaying the registration plates as prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder.
4. In the order dated 28.10.2021 in this Contempt Case, this Court noticed that, since the plying of goods vehicles in public places flouting the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the direction contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414] is likely to cause danger to other road users, this is a fit case in which this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly persons and differently-abled persons.
5. On 12.01.2022, when this Contempt Case came up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the Enforcement Officers as to whether the height of the load body of Torus tippers is permitted to be increased by way of unauthorised alterations, to carry overload. Pursuant to that direction, the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner has sworn to an affidavit dated 05.02.2022, producing therewith Annexure R2(d) Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 7 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 5 report dated 31.01.2022 of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, South Zone, Annexure R2(e) report dated 03.02.2022 of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone-I and Annexure R2(e) report dated 31.01.2022 of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, North Zone furnishing the details of the goods vehicles booked for unauthorised alteration (increase of height) of the load body. In paragraph 9 of the order dated 09.02.2022 in this contempt case, this Court noticed that such unauthorised alterations detected by the Enforcement Officers are being compounded and the offenders are being directed to adhere to the specifications in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and produce the vehicle before the respective Registering Authority for inspection.
6. In the order dated 12.04.2023 in this contempt case, this Court noticed that the State Government has a statutory duty to scrupulously enforce through the police and the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, as per the mandate of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court referred to supra. No leniency can be shown in offences like driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit; carrying overload in goods carriages; driving vehicles under the influence of drinks and drugs; using mobile phone while driving a vehicle; etc. The duly authorised police officers Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 8 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 6 and also the officers in the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department have to scrupulously follow the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414], in letter and spirit, in order to ensure the safety of other road users. Any disobedience of the orders or obstructions in the discharge of functions by the officers in the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department shall be dealt with appropriately by initiating appropriate proceedings against the driver/owner of goods vehicles and also the office bearers and members of the Torus and Tipper Associations, under Section 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the relevant provisions under the Indian Penal Code. Once the offence of carrying overload in goods carriages is detected, the duly authorised police officers and the officers in the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department shall forthwith forward the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle to the concerned Licensing Authority for initiating proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even in a case in which the offence is compounded under Section 200 of the said Act. Even after compounding an offence punishable under Section 194 of the Act, the excess load cannot be permitted to be carried in the vehicle concerned, as held by the Apex Court in Paramjit Bhasin [(2005) 12 SCC 642].
7. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of the Central Motor Vehicles Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 9 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 7 Rules, 1989 no person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V, which deals with construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Similarly, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 249 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 no person shall use and no person shall cause or allow to be used or to be in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the Rules contained in Chapter VII or with any order thereunder made by the competent authority.
8. In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (4) KLT 984] a Division Bench of this Court held that, a transport vehicle governed by AIS-008 [Installation Requirements of Lighting and Light- Signalling Devices for Motor Vehicle having more than Three Wheels including Quadricycles, Trailer and Semi-Trailer excluding Agricultural Tractor], which is not installed with lighting and light-signalling devices and also retro-reflectors referred to in Para.6.0, conforming to the individual specifications for such lighting and light-signalling devices and also for retro-reflectors prescribed in Paras.6.1 to 6.20, or a transport vehicle governed by AIS-008, which is installed with lighting and light-signalling devices or retro-reflectors other than those referred to in Para.6.0, cannot be granted fitness certificate, since such a vehicle cannot be treated as a vehicle which complies with the Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 10 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 8 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. In case, a fitness certificate is granted to any such vehicle, which cannot be treated as a vehicle that complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, the certificate of fitness granted to such vehicle is liable to be cancelled at any time, in accordance with the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for reasons to be recorded in writing, if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the vehicle no longer complies with all the requirements of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. In appropriate cases, the registering authority shall initiate proceedings to suspend or cancel the letter of authority granted or renewed under sub-rule (5) of Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules or forfeit the security deposit, after affording the holder of the letter of authority an opportunity of being heard.
9. In Suo Motu [2022 (4) KLT 984] the Division Bench held that, as per sub-section (4) of Section 182A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whoever, being the owner of a motor vehicle, alters a motor vehicle, including by way of retrofitting of motor vehicle parts, in a manner not permitted under the Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of five thousand rupees Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 11 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 9 per such alteration or with both. As per sub-section (2) of Section 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act, any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place a motor vehicle, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air-pollution, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both and he shall be disqualified for holding licence for a period of three months and for any second or subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
10. In the order dated 12.04.2023 in this contempt case, this Court noticed that video contents of the alterations made on goods vehicles and use of such vehicles in public places are being uploaded on online video platforms like 'YouTube', by the registered owners of such vehicles or by vloggers. A few screenshots of goods vehicles which are fitted with after-market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights, openly flouting the safety standards prescribed in AIS-008, capable of dazzling the drivers of the oncoming vehicles, pedestrians and other road users, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of other road users, reproduced in paragraph 20 of the order dated 12.04.2023, are reproduced hereunder;
Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 12 / 22Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 10 Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 13 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 11
11. In Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321] the Apex Court held that the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deal with every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle. In other words, the standards, sizes and specifications, which the manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle, are exhaustively dealt with under the Rules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from these Rules. The provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only the appropriate manner of construction and maintenance of vehicle but also the safety of other users of the road. The legislative intent attaching due significance to 'public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the Rules framed thereunder.
12. In Principal, Sabari PTB Smaraka H.S.S. v. Additional Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 14 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 12 Registering Authority and others [2020 (2) KLJ 662] this Court noticed that the provisions of AIS-008 deal with every minute detail of installation of lighting, light-signalling devices and retro-reflectors for a motor vehicle having more than three wheels, trailer and semi- trailer excluding agricultural tractor and special purpose vehicle. The lighting, light-signalling devices and retro-reflectors permitted to be installed on such motor vehicles have been specifically provided for in AIS-008. In the said decision, this Court held that, in view of the prohibition contained in Para.5.1, no such motor vehicle shall be permitted to be installed with any lighting and light-signalling devices or retro-reflectors, other than those referred to in Para.6.0 of AIS-
008.
13. In paragraph 24 of the order dated 12.04.2023 in this contempt case, this Court noticed that the use of a motor vehicle in a public place without complying with the installation requirements of lighting and light-signalling devices and also retro-reflectors as per AIS-008 is likely to endanger the safety of other road users. Therefore, vehicles which are fitted with after-market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights, as seen in the screenshots reproduced hereinbefore, which are being used in a public place, openly flouting the safety standards prescribed in AIS-008, which are capable of dazzling the drivers of the oncoming vehicles, pedestrians Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 15 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 13 and other road users, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of other road users, have to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, strictly in accordance with the law. In addition to the penal consequences provided in the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore, the owner of the vehicle has to be imposed with a fine of Rs.5,000/- per such alteration; i.e, Rs.5,000/- for each after- market multi-coloured LED/laser/neon lights, flash lights. Such goods vehicles cannot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness.
14. In Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414] this Court held that as per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 35 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver shall at all times ensure that loads, including load restraints and loading equipment, in the vehicle are stowed and restrained in such manner that these cannot slip, fall over, roll around, fall off the vehicle or produce avoidable noise, even in an emergency braking situation or if the vehicle swerves suddenly. As per sub-regulation (2), no driver shall drive in any public place a motor vehicle which is loaded in a manner which is likely to cause danger to any person. As per sub-regulation (3), the load or any part thereof, or any other object in the vehicle shall not extend laterally beyond the sides of the body or to the front or to the rear or exceed Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 16 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 14 in height or weight the limits specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle.
15. By the order dated 12.04.2023 in this contempt case, respondents 1 and 2, namely, the State of Kerala and the Transport Commissioner, Kerala, were directed to take necessary steps, through duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, including respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone-II, Ernakulam and the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the decision of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414]. It was ordered that proceedings for suspension/ cancellation of the certificate of registration/permit shall be initiated, in accordance with law, against goods vehicles carrying overload, without valid fitness certificate, and goods vehicles involved in repeated offences of carrying overload. Before releasing any goods vehicle carrying overload, the duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall ensure that such vehicles are not flouting the safety standards prescribed in AIS-008. Any obstructions caused by the driver/owner of goods vehicles and also the office bearers and members of the Torus and Tipper Association, in the discharge of functions by the officers in the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department, shall be dealt Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 17 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 15 with appropriately by initiating appropriate proceedings against them.
16. Today, during the course of arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court, a Special Report dated 01.04.2024 of the Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Thiruvananthapuram on the motor accident which occurred on 19.03.2024 at Manali Junction, Vizhinjam, involving a heavy goods carriage (Torus vehicle) bearing Reg.No.KL-11/BN-8865, resulting in the death of the rider of a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL- 20/R-1464, who was coming from the opposite direction. As per the information collected from witnesses and the Police team, Ananthu, the rider of the motorcycle was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident. He succumbed to death on account of grievous injuries to his chest and abdomen due to a fall of a rock from a heavy goods carriage (Torus vehicle) bearing Reg.No.KL-11/BN-8865.
17. In the Special Report dated 01.04.2024, it is stated that heavy goods carriage (Torus vehicle) bearing Reg.No.KL-11/BN-8865 was carrying a load more than the allowable height. The photographs of the said heavy goods carriage (Torus vehicle), which are enclosed along with the Special Report show that, at the time of the accident, the said vehicle was carrying rock above the height of the load body.
18. The learned Special Government Pleader has also made available for the perusal of this Court another report of the concerned Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 18 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 16 Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), regarding a motor accident which occurred on 03.04.2024 in MC Road at Thannipuzha, Kalady, in which a heavy goods vehicle (Torus tipper) bearing Reg.No.KL-51/P- 6756 collided with a two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KL-44/G-6151 resulting the death of rider of that scooter and its pillion rider.
19. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.01.2022, the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner has sworn to an affidavit dated 05.02.2022, producing therewith Annexures R2(d) to R2(e) reports of the Deputy Transport Commissioners of the South Zone, the Central Zone-I and the North Zone, furnishing the details of the goods vehicles booked for unauthorised alteration (increase of height) of the load body. In paragraph 9 of the order dated 09.02.2022, this Court noticed that such unauthorised alterations detected by the Enforcement Officers are being compounded and the offenders are being directed to adhere to the specifications in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and produce the vehicle before the respective Registering Authority for inspection.
20. The plying of goods vehicles in public places flouting the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the direction contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414] is causing danger to other road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly persons and differently-abled persons. Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 19 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 17
21. In addition to unauthorised alteration (increase of height) of the load body, unauthorised multi-colour LED/laser/neon lights, flashlights, etc., are being fitted in the cabin of heavy goods vehicles causing glare and reflection of light on the windscreen of the vehicle, endangering the safety of other road users. The cabin of such vehicles is being fitted with high-power audio-video system with touch screen, impairing the hearing of the driver and causing distraction to the driver, endangering the safety of other road users. Rearview mirrors fitted on either side of the cabin of heavy goods vehicles are being altered and the parabolic windscreen mirror fitted on the top of the cabin is being removed for fitting sun shade on the top of the windscreen, posing a potential threat to the safety of other road users, especially pedestrians, cyclists, etc. In view of the provisions under Section 190 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place such motor vehicle, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, shall be punishable with imprisonment or fine prescribed under sub-section (2).
22. Video content of such unauthorised alterations made in the cabin of heavy goods vehicles are being uploaded on online video platforms like 'YouTube', by the registered owners of such vehicles or vloggers. Such videos are being recorded inside the cabin of heavy Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 20 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 18 goods vehicles, while the vehicle is moving, disturbing the concentration of the driver while driving, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of other road users. Such vloggers, who promote the use of motor vehicles in public place, flouting the safety standards, posing potential threat to the safety of passengers and other road users, are also liable to be proceeded against, in accordance with law.
23. The learned Special Government Pleader seeks time to get instructions as to the action, if any, taken by respondents 1 and 2 against vloggers, who promote the use of motor vehicles in public place, flouting the safety standards.
24. The duly authorised police officers and also the officers in the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department shall scrupulously follow the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414], in letter and spirit, in order to ensure the safety of other road users. Once the offence of carrying overload in goods carriages is detected, the duly authorised police officers and the officers in the Enforcement Wing of the Motor Vehicles Department shall forthwith forward the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle to the concerned Licensing Authority for initiating proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even in a case in which the offence is compounded under Section 200 of the said Act. Even after compounding an offence punishable Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 21 / 22 Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 19 under Section 194 of the Act, the excess load cannot be permitted to be carried in the vehicle concerned, as held by the Apex Court in Paramjit Bhasin [(2005) 12 SCC 642].
25. The fitness certificates of the goods vehicles booked for unauthorised alteration (increase of height) of the load body shall be suspended till the said vehicle is produced before the respective Registering Authority for inspection, after removing such alteration, thereby adhering to the specifications in the Registration Certificate of that vehicle. Any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place a goods carriage, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, shall be dealt with appropriately by initiating prosecution, and that vehicle shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. The Enforcement Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall proceed against such vehicles and any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven such vehicles in any public place, after collecting the details of such vehicles and persons from the video uploaded on online platforms like 'YouTube' or from the details furnished by the public in the WhatsApp number 9497930005 of 'Traffic Eye'.
List on 12.04.2024.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE bkn/-
05-04-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar
Con.Case(C) No.1728/2021 22 / 22
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1728/2021
Annexure R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31/01/2022.
Annexure R2(e) THE REPORT DATED 03/02/2022 OF THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE II, ERNAKULAM.
Ext.P1 in WP(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT
39574/2018 COMMITTEE ON ROAD SAFETY HEADED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JUSTICE
K.R RADHAKRISHNAN DATED 18/08/2015.
05-04-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar