Anil Kumar K.S vs Regional Transport Officer ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7229 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
            TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945
                             WP(C) NO. 17532 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

     1        ANIL KUMAR K.S,
              AGED 49 YEARS
              S/O T.N. SREEDHARAN,
              RESIDING AT KAKKATTU HOUSE,
              MADAMON P.O., VADASSERIKKARA,
              PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689711
              BY ADVS.
              G.HARIHARAN
              PRAVEEN.H.
              K.S.SMITHA
              V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
              BIJOY SAM GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

     1        REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),
              CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT ., PIN - 680003
     2        JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
              SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
              CHERIYAMOOZHIYIL BUILDING,
              PULIMUKKU, ANGADI PO, RANNI,
              PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689674
     3        TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
              TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014., PIN - 695014
     4        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001., PIN - 695001
     5        UNION OF INDIA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
              SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
              S.KRISHNA

     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.17532 of 2023
                                   2




                             C.S.DIAS, J.
                -------------------------
                       W.P.(C.) No.17532 of 2023
                -------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of June, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3

proceedings passed by the first respondent

invoking the provision of Section 19 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'Act').

2. The petitioner's case is that, he is a driver

by profession holding Ext.P1 heavy driving

license. The petitioner was served with Ext.P3

proceedings suspending Ext.P1 license. Ext.P3

has been passed without hearing the petitioner.

Section 19 of the Act does not empower the

Licensing Authority to suspend the driving

license. The first respondent does not have the

power to invoke the provisions of Sections 113 WPC No.17532 of 2023

and 114 of the Act. Perhaps, the first

respondent acting on Ext.P4 order passed by

the Transport Commissioner has carried out the

acts. Though the petitioner has a right to file a

statutory appeal under Section 57 of the Act

challenging Ext.P3 proceedings, in view of the

interpretation given in Ext.P4, no useful

purpose will be served in filing the appeal.

Recently, it has become a practice of the

Enforcing Officers to assert the powers of the

Original Licensing Authority, without territorial

jurisdiction, leaving the hapless drivers

remediless. Ext.P3 proceedings are ex-facie

illegal and unsustainable in law, especially

because the petitioner has not even been

served with a show cause notice. Hence, the

writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned WPC No.17532 of 2023

Counsel appearing for the petitioner,

Sri.Sreejith V.S., the learned Government

Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and

Sri.Manu S., the learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India appearing for the 5 th

respondent.

4. Sri.G.Hariharan, argued that there is

absolutely nothing on record to substantiate

that the petitioner has violated the provisions of

the Motor Vehicles Act, by carrying overload in

the vehicle that he was driving, as alleged by

the respondents. Moreover, the petitioner was

not given a show cause notice or afforded an

opportunity of being heard. Hence, Ext.P3

proceedings may be quashed.

5. Sri.Sreejith V.S., on the contrary,

submitted that the petitioner has deliberately

not produced the e-challan that was issued by WPC No.17532 of 2023

the respondents at the time of carrying out the

inspection of the vehicle. It was the petitioner

who handed over the weighment certificate,

which clearly establishes that the vehicle was

overloaded. It was on the strength of the

weighment certificate that the respondents have

issued Ext.P3 proceedings. Ext.P3 proceedings

was passed after issuing a show cause notice,

which is clearly mentioned as reference number

two in Ext.P3. The proceedings have been

initiated to revoke licenses of those drivers who

violate Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in the light

of the direction passed by this Court in Anoop

K.A. v. State of Kerala [2019 5 KHC 414].

Hence, the writ petition is to be rejected at the

threshold.

6. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act WPC No.17532 of 2023

empowers the Licensing Authority, after giving

the holder of a license an opportunity of being

heard, to revoke the license, if the license

holder has caused nuisance or danger to public.

7. Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989, unambiguously states that

nuisance or danger to public, includes carrying

overload in a goods carriage vehicle.

8. Having considered the pleadings and

materials on record, and the rival submissions,

particularly after perusing the e-challan, the

weighment certificate and Ext.P3 proceedings,

this Court has no doubt in its mind that there is

no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the

first respondent in issuing Ext.P3 proceedings,

warranting interference by this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An order

passed under Section 19(1) of the Act is WPC No.17532 of 2023

appealable under Section 19(3) of the Act within

thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of

the order.

Resultantly, I order the writ petition as

follows:

(i) The petitioner's prayer to quash Ext.P3

proceedings is rejected.

(ii) The petitioner may, if so advised, prefer

an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act before

the Appellate Authority within two weeks from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

(iii) If the petitioner prefers an appeal as

directed above, the Appellate Authority shall

accept the appeal on file, treating it to be filed

within the prescribed time period, consider and

dispose of the same, in accordance with law and

as expeditiously as possible, after affording the WPC No.17532 of 2023

petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

(iv) Until such time orders are passed on the

appeal, if it is filed within the above prescribed

time period, the respondents are restrained

from revoking Ext.P1 license of the petitioner.

Sd/-

C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/27-06 WPC No.17532 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17532/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENCE NO.KL 03 19990000803 ISSUED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY SRTO, RANNY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-04AS-9699 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/24/2022-TC DATED 09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS RELATING TO ST.NO.106/2022 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM FOR OFFENCES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED OFFENCES U/S 113 (3)(B) R/W SECTION 194(1) OF THE MV ACT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 MADE IN W.P.(C).NO.15001/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE