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
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],
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
