The Principal, Sabari Ptb Smaraka ... vs The Additional Registering ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14030 Ker

WP(C) No.23021/2018                       1 / 14

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
             Wednesday, the 7th day of July 2021 / 16th Ashadha, 1943
                             WP(C) NO. 23021 OF 2018
   PETITIONER:

          THE PRINCIPAL, SABARI PTB SMARAKA H.S.S ADAKKAPUTHUR, OTTAPALAM.
          BY ADV P.DEEPAK

   RESPONDENTS:

      1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, OTTAPALAM -679101.
      2. ADDL.R2. P.M.SHAJI, MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT
         OFFICE, SBI BUILDING, NEAR MUNCIPAL BUS STAND, OTTAPALAM, PIN 671
         521. ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
         05/09/2019.
      3. ADDL R3, THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, KERALA, TRANSPORT
         COMMISSIONERATE, 2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD P.O,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
         28-10-2019 IN WP(C)23021/2018.

         BY ADV.SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

        This Writ petition(Civil) coming up for orders on 07/07/2021, upon
   perusing the judgement dated 28/10/2019 IN WP(C) 23021/2018 and this
   court's order dated 09/04/2021, the court passed the following:
 WP(C) No.23021/2018                        2 / 14




      W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018             :-1-:




                               ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
                             ---------------------------------
                              W.P.(C)No. 23021 of 2018
                       --------------------------------------------
                         Dated this the 7th day of July, 2021

                                       ORDER

In Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC

321], after referring to the provisions under Rules 100, 104, 104A,

106, 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the

Apex Court held that the provisions of the said 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, 1988, the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the

rules framed thereunder.

2. In Avishek Goenka, the Apex Court prohibited the use

of black films of any visual transmission of light percentage or any

other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and

rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. The

Apex Court ordered that the Home Secretary, Director General/ WP(C) No.23021/2018 3 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-2-:

Commissioner of Police of the respective States/Centre shall ensure

compliance with the direction contained in the judgment, which

shall become operative and enforceable with effect from

04.05.2012. In the said decision, the Apex Court found that, use of

black films has proved to be a criminal's paradise and a social evil.

The unanimous view of various police authorities right from the

States of Calcutta, Tamil Nadu and Delhi to the Ministry of Home

Affairs that use of black films on vehicles has jeopardised the

security and safety interests of the State and the public at large.

This certainly helps the criminals to escape from the eyes of the

police and aids in commission of heinous crimes like sexual assault

on women, robberies, kidnapping, etc. If these crimes can be

reduced by enforcing the prohibition of law, it would further the

cause of the rule of law and public interest as well.

3. Justice Verma Committee was constituted by the

Government of India, vide Notification No.SO(3003)E dated

23.12.2012 to look into possible amendments of the Criminal Law

to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals

committing sexual assault of extreme nature against women. The

immediate cause for the constitution of the Committee was the WP(C) No.23021/2018 4 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-3-:

brutal gang rape of a young woman in Delhi, in a public transport

vehicle, in the late evening of 16.12.2012. Chapter 10 of the report

dated 23.01.2013 deals with provision of adequate safety measures

and amenities in respect of women. After referring to the law laid

down by the Delhi High Court in Court on its Own Motion v.

Union of India [(2007) 139 DLT 244] and also the law laid

down by the Apex Court in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India

[(2012) 5 SCC 321] prohibiting the use of black films of any

visual transmission of light percentage or any other material upon

the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of

all vehicles throughout the country, the Committee observed as

follows in Para.6 of the report;

"6. A cursory glance on any of India's roads at any time of day or night will show that these directions of the Supreme Court are being openly flouted by all and sundry. It saddens the Committee to note that the police forces of this country enforce these directions, and indeed law, only when orders are passed by various courts, and then again, only take action for a few days." (underline supplied)

4. In Jijith and others v. State of Kerala and others

[2019 (1) KHC 463 : 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 8262] this Court

held that, in view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the Central WP(C) No.23021/2018 5 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-4-:

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the law laid down by the Apex

Court in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC

321] and Avishek Goenka (2) v. Union of India [(2012) 8

SCC 441], tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of

light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side

windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon

the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally

impermissible. In Saji v. Deputy Transport Commissioner

[2019 (3) KHC 836 : 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 2047] this Court

held that the law laid down in Jijith is equally applicable in the case

of transport vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC, KURTC and also

Government vehicles. In the judgment dated 28.10.2019 in W.P.

(C)No.23021 of 2018 [Principal, Sabari PTB Smaraka H.S.S v.

Additional Registering Authority and others - 2020 (2) KHC

SN 9 : 2020 (2) KLJ 662 : 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 7998] this

Court directed the Transport Commissioner, Kerala, among other

things, to take necessary steps to ensure through the concerned

officers in the Motor Vehicles Department that no motor vehicle,

including a Government vehicle, is permitted to be used in any

public place, after tampering with the percentage of visual WP(C) No.23021/2018 6 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-5-:

transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear

window and side windows, by pasting stickers, tint films upon the

safety glass or by fixing sliding cloth curtains, etc., in violation of

sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

5. In the order dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.(C)No.23021 of

2018, this Court noticed that, as evident from the statement filed

on behalf of the Transport Commissioner, Kerala, on 23.03.2021,

large number of vehicles are being permitted to be used in public

place with cooling films and curtains, in contravention of the

directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court and this

Court, prohibiting the use of such materials on the windscreen, rear

window and side windows of motor vehicles. In the said order, this

Court noticed that, even after the filing of the action taken report

on 24.11.2020, large number of vehicles including Government

vehicles are being permitted to be used in public place using cooling

films, curtains, etc., which is evident from the fact that 5775

vehicles were booked for using cooling films, curtains, etc., in the

special drive 'Operation Screen' conducted for the period from

17.01.2021 to 20.01.2021. The State Police Chief has to issue

circular dated 14.12.2020, after the action taken report filed by the WP(C) No.23021/2018 7 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-6-:

Joint Transport Commissioner (Enforcement) on 24.11.2020,

directing removal of window curtains, bull bars, sun films, etc., from

the vehicles of Police Department. The said circular was followed by

circular dated 30.12.2020 issued by the Home Department,

whereby all Government Departments are instructed to ensure that

none of the vehicles under their administrative control use

curtains/dark films or any materials, which affects the visual light

transmission percentage, through the windscreens/ windows.

6. In Para.9.3 of the order dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.

(C)No.23021 of 2018, this Court recorded the submission made by

the learned Special Government Pleader that the enforcement

officers in the Motor Vehicles Department and also the police shall

ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the judgment

of the Apex Court and that of this Court prohibiting the use of

cooling films, curtains, etc. on the windscreen, rear window and

side windows of motor vehicles and that, they shall also ensure

strict compliance of the directions contained in Circular

No.69/CAMP/ADGP (HQ)/2019 dated 14.12.2020 of the State Police

Chief and that contained in Circular No.G3/858/2019/Home dated WP(C) No.23021/2018 8 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-7-:

30.12.2020 issued by the Government of Kerala, Home

Department.

7. Though, the Apex Court in Avishek Goenka [(2012) 5

SCC 321] prohibited the use of black films or any other materials

upon the safety glasses, windscreens and side glasses of all

vehicles throughout the country, since use of such films and other

materials certainly help the criminals to escape from the eyes of the

police and aids in commission of heinous crimes like sexual assault

on women, robberies, kidnapping, etc., even after nearly a decade,

the directions issued by the Apex Court are being openly flouted by

all. Several vehicles with cooling films pasted on the safety glass,

which are even fitted with sliding cloth curtains, are even now

permitted to be used in public place and some of such vehicles are

seen parked on the side of the road in front of the High Court

Building, with 'garlands' hanging on the rear-view mirror fitted on

windscreen, in order to identify the political party. The enforcement

agencies in the Motor Vehicles Department and the Police are not

taking any action against such vehicles.

8. In Para.128 of the judgment dated 28.10.2019 in W.P.

      (C)No.23021 of         2018     this    Court directed the additional 3rd
 WP(C) No.23021/2018                            9 / 14




      W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018                 :-8-:

respondent Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to

ensure through the concerned officers in the Motor Vehicles

Department that no motor vehicle, including transport vehicle, is

permitted to be used in any public place, without displaying the

registration mark on a licence plate having the specification

prescribed in clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 50 and 51 of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Regulation 36 of the Motor

Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017; and without 'rear registration

plate (mark) illuminating lamp', illuminating the space

accommodating the rear registration plate. The registration mark

on every motor vehicle shall be displayed clearly and legibly using

fonts having 'uniform thickness'. The display of registration mark

using 'fancy fonts' or 'decorative fonts', shall not be permitted.

9. In Para.11.9 of the order dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.

(C)No.23021 of 2018, this Court noticed that despite the specific

directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated

28.10.2019, motor vehicles other than those carrying the

constitutional authorities and other dignitaries specified in Part I

and Part II of Schedule II of the State Emblem of India (Regulation

of Use) Rules, 2007/dignitaries specified in clauses (1) to (7) of WP(C) No.23021/2018 10 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-9-:

Paragraph 3.44 of the Flag Code of India, 2002 are being permitted

to be used in public place displaying emblems and flags. In most of

such vehicles the registration mark is not displayed in the form and

manner specified under Rules 50 and 51 of the Central Motor

Vehicles Rules, on a licence plate having the size of 500 × 120 mm.

Letters, words and symbols other than the registration mark are

inscribed or written on the registration plate of such vehicles, in

violation of the provisions under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 36

of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017.

10. In Paras.10.3 and 10.4 of the order dated 09.04.2021 in

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018, this Court noticed that, large number of

motor vehicles are being permitted to be used in public place, in

violation of the safety standards prescribed in AIS-008/AIS-

009/2001/AIS-030/2001. The light emitted from the additional

headlamps/lamps/flashing lamps installed on such vehicles is

capable of dazzling the drivers of the oncoming vehicles and also

the pedestrians. The video contents of the alterations made to the

lighting, light signaling devices and reflectors, by replacing the

prototype approved parts with after-market LED lights, or by

'tinting' the headlights, tail lights, indicators, day time running light, WP(C) No.23021/2018 11 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-10-:

etc., by fixing vinyl tint film sticker are being uploaded on online

video platforms like 'YouTube' by the registered owners of such

vehicles or by vloggers.

11. In addition to this, large number of motor vehicles are

being permitted to be used in public place without displaying the

registration mark, clearly and legibly, using fonts having 'uniform

thickness', on a licence plate having the prescribed specification.

The video contents of the alterations made to registration plates of

two-wheelers by altering the position of the registration plate on

front and rear and even by replacing the high security number plate

are being uploaded on online video platforms like 'YouTube' by the

registered owners of such vehicles or by vloggers.

12. Motor vehicles other than those carrying the

constitutional authorities and other dignitaries specified in Part I

and Part II of Schedule II of the State Emblem of India (Regulation

of Use) Rules, 2007/ dignitaries specified in clauses (1) to (7) of

Paragraph 3.44 of the Flag Code of India, 2002 (which is extracted

hereibefore in Para.11.3) are being permitted to be used in public

place displaying emblems and flags. In most of such vehicles,

letters, words and symbols other than the registration mark are WP(C) No.23021/2018 12 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-11-:

inscribed or written on the registration plate, in violation of the

provisions under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 36 of the Motor

Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Such name boards are being

permitted on motor vehicles owned by co-operative societies,

societies, Non-Governmental Organisations, Public Private

Partnerships, etc., as noticed hereinbefore in Para.11.12. The name

of the State Government and also the name of this Court is

permitted to be exhibited on vehicles, in violation of Section 3 of

the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

The designation of the Law Officers and Central Government

Counsel of this Court is being permitted to be written on the

registration plate of their motor vehicles.

13. Even after the order of this Court dated 09.04.2021 in

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018, vehicles are being permitted to be used

in public place exhibiting name boards, inscribed or written on the

registration plate, in violation of the provisions under sub-

regulation (3) of Regulation 36 of Motor Vehicles (Driving)

Regulations, 2017. Such name boards are seen inscribed or written

on the registration plate of the vehicles of Government Pleaders

and Central Government Counsel and even the vehicles used by the WP(C) No.23021/2018 13 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-12-:

Judicial Officers in the District Judiciary. The registration mark on

every motor vehicle, including that owned by Government Pleaders,

Central Government Counsel, Judicial Officers in the District

Judiciary and also vehicles owned/used by the Central Government/

State Government Departments and also vehicles used for carrying

constitutional authorities/dignitories has to be displayed on a

registration plate, as per the statutory mandate of Rules 50 and 51

of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, read with sub-regulation (3) of

Regulation 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations.

14. The learned Special Government Pleader seeks a short

time to get instructions as to whether the name board of the

Government Pleader/Central Government Counsel is inscribed or

written on the registration plate of any motor vehicle, in violation of

the above statutory madate.

15. List on 14.07.2021 at 2.00 p.m.

16. The submission made by the learned Special

Government Pleader that some more time is required for filing an

action taken report of the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner,

on account of Covid-19 restrictions, is recorded.

Registry to give a copy of this order to Registrar General and WP(C) No.23021/2018 14 / 14

W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018 :-13-:

Registrar (District Judiciary), for information and necessary action.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE YD

As per order dated 09.07.2021 in W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018

the following corrections are effected in the order dated 07.07.2021

in W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018;

The words "(which is extracted hereibefore in

Para.11.3)" occurring in lines 5 and 6 of paragraph 12 at page

No.10 of the order dated 07.07.2021 is corrected as "(which is

extracted in Para.11.3 of the order dated 09.04.2021 in W.P.

(C)No.23021 of 2018)."

The words "as noticed hereinbefore in Para.11.12"

occurring in line 14 of paragraph 12 at page No.11 of the said order

is corrected as "as noticed in Para.11.12 of the order dated

09.04.2021 in W.P.(C)No.23021 of 2018."

The words "statutory madate" occurring in line No.5 of

paragraph 14 at page No.12 of the said order is substituted as

"statutory mandate".

Sd/-

                                                                     Joint Registrar
      09.07.2021



07-07-2021                       /True Copy/                                Assistant Registrar