Kerala High Court
M.V.Antony vs The Regional Transport Officer on 20 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
Wednesday, the 20th day of October 2021 / 28th Aswina, 1943
WP(C) NO. 19041 OF 2021(E)
PETITIONERS:
1. M.V.ANTONY, AGED 53 YEARS S/O VARGHESE, MATHUPURAM HOUSE,
ASSARIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR.
2. DALI JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O M.V.ANTONY, MATHUPURAM HOUSE,
ASSARIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR.
3. AFSAL, S/O ABDUL KHADER, VADAKKUMKARI, BRAHMAPURAM P.O, PUTHENCRUZ,
ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
THRISSUR, PIN-680003.
2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRIPUNITHURA, SUB REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA-682301.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to issue an interim direction directing the respondent to
provisionally endores the transfer of ownership of goods carriage covered
by Exhibit P1, P1(a) & P1(b) certificates of registration to the name of
the 3rd petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S P.DEEPAK Advocates for the petitioners, M/S GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Advocates for the respondents, the court passed the following:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W. P. (C) Nos.19609, 19041 &
20032 of 2021
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2021
REFERENCE ORDER
The petitioners are the registered owners of goods
carriages. They have approached this Court aggrieved by
the refusal on the part of the first respondent Regional
Transport Officer in providing them services relating to
registration of their vehicles. Unless the pending
challans/check reports against the vehicles are cleared
the services sought for will not be provided, is the
stand taken by the respondent; it is against law,
contends the petitioners.
2. Heard Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri.Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior
Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The petitioners, relying on the judgments of this
Court in Kerala Bus Transport Association and Another v. Transport
Commissioner [2013 (1) KLT 440] and State of Kerala and Another v.
W. P. (C) Nos.19609, 19041 &
20032 of 2021
C.P.Varghese [2017 (3) KLT 744] contend that, services cannot
be declined to the registered owners on the ground of
pendency of check reports/challans.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would on
the other hand refer to Rule 167 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules") to contend that, the decisions referred to by
the learned counsel for the petitioners were rendered
prior to the amendment of the Rules bringing in Rule 167
with effect from 01.10.2020 and that, the Rule
authorize/enable the Regional Transport Officer to
decline services relating to registration of vehicles if
challans are due/outstanding.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reply
to the said contention by referring to the judgments of
this Court in WP(C) No.27876/2020 and in W.A.
No.402/2021 that, Rule 167 was specifically taken note
of in the said judgments and it was held that the
W. P. (C) Nos.19609, 19041 &
20032 of 2021
services cannot be refused on the ground of pendency of
challans/check reports.
6. To appreciate the question involved it is
necessary to refer to Rule 167 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules as amended in the year 2020 and the same
reads thus:-
"167. Procedure for issuance and payment of
challan:- (1) Any police officer in uniform or any
other officer, authorised by the State Government
in this behalf shall issue a challan through system
or e-challan facility physical or electronic form,
to a person acting in violation of the provisions
of the Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-rule (1), in case of any person violates the
provisions of the Act, the State Government or
designated agency can enable auto-generation of
challan through electronic monitoring and
enforcement system or manually by any police
officer or by a designated agency.
(3) The challan issued under sub-rules (1) or
(2), shall be delivered to a person who violates
the provisions of the Act either by hand or any
other physical or electronic means of
communication authorised by the Central
Government or State Government.
W. P. (C) Nos.19609, 19041 &
20032 of 2021
(4) Details of challans issued under sub-rules
(1) or (2), shall be recorded chronologically in
the portal on a regular basis for access by
enforcement officers.
(5) Challans issued under sub-rules (1) or (2)
shall be disposed of within ninety days from the
date of issuance of the challan, in physical or
electronic form, except in case of offences
instituted for prosecution by a court.
(6) If a challan is due beyond the time period
specified in sub-rule (5), at least one additional
notice for payment may be sent through
electronic means of communication authorised by
the Central Government or State Government or
by way of call to the registered mobile number of
a person who violates the provisions of the Act.
(7) If a challan is due beyond the time period
specified in sub-rule (5), except in case of
offences instituted for prosecution by a court,
then applications with respect to the license of
offender or registration of motor vehicle, as the
case may be, mentioned in the challan shall not
be processed by the licensing authority or
registering authority, as the case may be, except
applications relating to permit, fitness and
tax(es) of motor vehicle.
(8) Subject to orders of the court, in respect of
challans issued under sub rules (1) or (2), a
police officer in uniform authorised by the State
Government in this behalf may detain the vehicle
involved in violation."
W. P. (C) Nos.19609, 19041 &
20032 of 2021
7. Rule 167(5) stipulates that, except in cases of
offences instituted for prosecution by court, the
challans issued shall be disposed of within a period of
90 days of its issuance. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 167 says
that, if the challan is due beyond 90 days (the period
stipulated under sub-rule 5) then services relating to
licence of offender or registration of motor vehicle
could be withheld. The sub-rule further clarifies that
services relating to permit, fitness and taxes shall not
be declined/withheld on the ground of unpaid challans.
Therefore, prima facie it appears that, unless within 90
days of issuance of challan it is paid or the intention
to contest the proceedings is intimated to the
authority, the facilities relating to licence and
registration can be denied.
8. As regards the judgment in W.A. No.402/2021
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
though the amended Rule 167 was referred to therein,
W. P. (C) Nos.19609, 19041 &
20032 of 2021
essentially what was discussed therein related to
permit. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 167 specifically provides
that facilities relating to permit/fitness and tax shall
not be denied to the violator. As regards the judgment
in W.P.(C) No.27876/2020, though a contention appears to
have been urged with reference to Rule 167, the impact
of sub-rule (7) of Rule 167 does not seem to have been
specifically dealt with therein.
9. On a reading of Rule 167 (5), (6) and (7) it
prima facie appears that, the right of the alleged
violator to avail certain services have been curtailed
during the pendency of check reports/challans. In the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the issue needs
to be adverted to by a Bench of appropriate strength.
Registry is directed to place the matter before the
Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge
20-10-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
