Kerala High Court
Tvs Mobility Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... on 20 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 37756 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
TVS MOBILITY PVT LTD.
DOOR NO.23/649 A2, ANGLES SQUARE, TVS JUNCTION,
SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682022 REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER- LEGAL.
BY ADVS.
V.KRISHNA MENON
P.VIJAYAMMA
J.SURYA
PRINSUN PHILIP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, TRANS TOWERS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER AND
REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-
682030.
BY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.37756 of 2022
2
AMIT RAWAL, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.37756 of 2022
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2022
JUDGMENT
This Court on 30.11.2022 passed a detailed order.
Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Government
Pleader has placed on record a letter dated 16.12.2022,
that in compliance of the order dated 30.11.2022, the
vehicle along with the seized document have been
released to the petitioner, which fact is evident from the
releasing order attached with the letter. The photocopy
of the letter taken on record and marked as Ext.C1.
2. Sri.V.Krishna Menon, learned counsel on
behalf of the petitioner controverts the contents of the
aforementioned letter by saying that the petitioner has
not been handed over the register and Form-19 being
maintained as per the provisions of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules,1989.
W.P.(C) No.37756 of 2022
3. On the other hand, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose,
relies upon averments in paragraph 7 of the counter,
which are extracted herein:-
"7. On finding the above irregularities the
inspecting officer has continued a keen
observation regarding the dealer's action. On
15.11.2022 the inspecting officer has found that
the vehicle the vehicle bearing chassis number
MEEHBCOOO9N3048942 was driven by one
Sri.Vishnu, the possessor of a Motor Driving
License - KL32 20090001503, without having
Form-19. Sri.Vishnu was not a customer of the
dealer as per a written statement and he is not a
staff with any identity card. There was another
person present in the vehicle who was not
connected any way with the dealer. This alone is
sufficient to show that the vehicle was then used
for some other purposes other than demonstration.
The vehicle was given for speed test, which is
violation of CMVR 40 of Central Motor Vehicles
Rules-1989. The trade insurance is only covered
for issued person or bonafide person under the
business as per CMVR-41 of Central Vehicles
Rules-1989. In this case it is not covered by the
rules and regulations of the insurance company.
Hence, in fact, it is as the vehicle is used in public
place without insurance coverage." [SIC]
4. Since the vehicle was seized for not holding
W.P.(C) No.37756 of 2022
the Form-19, therefore, there was no case for the
concerned officer to seize the Form-19 and handover
the same in pursuance to the order of this Court.
5. I am of the view that the controversy with
regard to the factual aspects that whether the vehicle
was having the Form-19 or not cannot be adjudicated
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
remedy lies elsewhere. Once the vehicle has been
released, the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate with
regard to the other grounds in accordance with law
before the competent authority.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that, respondents have also taken another
ground for seizing the vehicle that the vehicle rode for
11,000 kms which is not permissible for a demo vehicle.
In support of the contention, referred to the provisions
of Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act,1974, which do not envisage any such restriction.
W.P.(C) No.37756 of 2022
7. I am in agreement with the arguments of
Sri.V.Krishna Menon that there is no provision in the
local or the Central Act restricting the movement of the
demo vehicles for certain kilometers. The said ground is
not sustainable.
Writ petition stands closed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
TR
W.P.(C) No.37756 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37756/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 9.2.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER DATED 2.5.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED
15.11.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER/STATEMENT DATED
15.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE PROSPECTIVE
CUSTOMER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT WITH
ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 6.8.2018
WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
16.10.2019 IN W.A.NO.2134/2019
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
4.9.2019 IN W.A.NO.1939/2019
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 13.4.2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) Show Cause Notice dated 21.11.2022
issued by RTO,Ernakulam to the
petitioner
