Kerala High Court
Siyath. K vs State Of Kerala on 13 March, 2025
2025:KER:22074
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9531 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SIYATH. K,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. HAMZA K., PROPRIETOR, AUTOMIA POLLUTION
CENTRE,CHATTIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
JIJO PAUL
ANJALI SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,IIND FLOOR,
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAD, THYCAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER,MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
2025:KER:22074
: 2:
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
4 MR. P.M. APPU,
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),BSNL BUILDING, KOOTTUPATHA
JUNCTION, CHANDRANAGAR.P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678007
BY ADV. SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.9536/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22074
: 3:
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9536 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UMMAR ILLIKKAL,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. VEERANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, MALABAR POLLUTION
TESTING POINT, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
JIJO PAUL
ANJALI SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, IIND FLOOR,
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAD,THYCAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2025:KER:22074
: 4:
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 MR. P M APPU,
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT), BSNL BUILDING, KOTTUPATHA
JUNCTION, CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD,PIN - 678007
BY ADV.SRI. SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).9531/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22074
: 5:
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9539 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UMMAR ILLIKKAL,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.VEERANKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, MALABAR POLLUTION
TESTING POINT,KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639
BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
THOMAS T.VARGHESE
ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
V.T.LITHA
K.R.MONISHA
JIJO PAUL
ANJALI SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,IIND FLOOR,
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAD, THYCAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2025:KER:22074
: 6:
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 MR. P.M. APPU,
MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),BSNL BUILDING, KOOTTUPATHA
JUNCTION, CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD,PIN - 678007
BY ADV.SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.03.2025,ALONG WITH WP(C).9531/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:22074
: 7:
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
GOPINATH P., J.
===========================
W.P(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
============================
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions have been filed challenging show cause
notices issued to the petitioners by the Motor Vehicles Department.
The petitioners are running pollution testing centres under a licence
issued by the Motor Vehicles Department. They have been issued
with the impugned Show Cause Notices inter alia on the premise
that the centres in question are not conducting tests in conformity
with the provisions contained in Rule 115 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioners contend that the show cause
notices are liable to be quashed as they have been issued with
malafide intentions and are thus without jurisdiction. The
petitioners also have a case that without mentioning anything in the
show cause notices issued to them, their access to the PARIVAHAN
portal where results of testing are being uploaded, has been blocked,
effectively stopping the business of the petitioners from 07.03.2025
onwards.
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the show cause notices issued to the petitioners in all
three cases are identical in nature. It is submitted that they do not
contain any specific allegations. It is submitted that the reason for
issuance of the show cause notices is malafide and selected pollution
testing centres are targeted only because they are not ready to accede
to the illegal demands of the officers. It is submitted that the action
of blocking the ID of the petitioners to the PARIVAHAN site without
mentioning anything in the show cause notices is also illegal. It is
submitted that in such circumstances these writ petitions are to be
disposed of directing adjudication of the show cause notices after
hearing the petitioners but in the meanwhile directing that the
petitioners be permitted to run their testing centres by ensuring that
access to the PARIVAHAN site is restored. It is submitted that the
show cause notices are liable to be quashed in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India as they are
without jurisdiction.
3. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the
grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the notices
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
which are impugned are only show cause notices and it is for the
petitioners to appear before the competent authority and submit
replies to the show cause notices. It is submitted that the show cause
notices will be adjudicated in accordance with the law and all
contentions taken by the petitioners can be considered by the
competent authority. It is submitted that the test results of the
vehicles tested in the centres belonging to the petitioners are
showing anomalous results which would indicate that tests were not
conducted in terms of the provisions contained in Rules 115 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It is submitted that for example in
respect of the pollution testing centre run by the petitioner in WP (c)
No.9531 of 2025, Ext.P2 will show that there is an unreasonably high
level of oxygen in the results which would indicate that the probe
was not inserted into the exhaust system in a proper manner and as
contemplated by the provisions of Rule 115 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules. It is submitted that the perusal of the results would
indicate beyond doubt that the testing was not done in terms of the
provisions contained in Rule 115 and therefore the officials had no
option but to issue show cause notices to the petitioners. It is
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
submitted that access to the PARIVAHAN site had to be blocked as
otherwise the petitioners would continue to test vehicles in an
improper manner and issue Pollution Under Control (PUC)
Certificates. It is submitted that considering the purpose for which
PUC certificates are insisted upon, it would not be conducive to
public interest if persons who are not conducting the testing centres
in a proper manner are permitted to continue issuing PUC
certificates and uploading the test results on the PARIVAHAN site.
It is submitted that show cause notices will be adjudicated within the
shortest possible time.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view
that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with
the show cause notices issued to them. This Court will be loath to
interfere with any proceedings at the stage of a show cause notice.
Authorities for this proposition are many. The principle was
succinctly stated in Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories,
(2007) 13 SCC 270. It was held:-
"31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a
case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their
contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the
authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding
against the person against whom the show-cause notices have
been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of
issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to
the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal
rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a
show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an
abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court
would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of
show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice
stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere
assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without
jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It
should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual
adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out."
The allegations of malafide are feeble and do not compel me to hold
that show-cause notices are the result of malice. A perusal of Ext.P2
in WPC No.9531/2025 indicates that the level of oxygen measured in
the vehicles tested at the centre which is the subject matter of the
said writ petition shows a higher level of oxygen which in turn
indicates that the testing was not conducted properly by inserting the
probe into the exhaust system in the manner as contemplated by the
Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. While it will not be
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
proper for this court to make a final finding regarding the above
question (as the proceedings are only at the stage of show cause
notice), the above observation is for considering whether the
petitioners have made out any prima facie case for grant of relief
permitting them to continue with the operation of testing centres
pending the adjudication of the show cause notices. I have held in
the Judgment in WP(c) No.3204/2024 (while considering the power
of the authorities to suspend a licence under the provisions of the
Abkari Act and the rules framed thereunder), that the power of
suspension is given to the authorities to take urgent action wherever
such action is required to uphold public interest and that such power
of suspension cannot be preceded by notice and hearing. In the facts
of the present case, it is true that the authorities have not indicated
in the show cause notices issued to the petitioners that their access to
the PARIVAHAN site is blocked or suspended. While it would have
been more appropriate for the authorities to indicate so in the show
cause notices, the fact that the same has not been indicated or set out
in the show cause notices issued to the petitioners does not lead to
the conclusion that the exercise of such powers by the authorities is
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
illegal or arbitrary. The access has been blocked on account of the
fact that if the petitioners are permitted to continue testing vehicles
even after noticing irregularities, the same will be against the public
interest.
5. Therefore, I find no ground made out for the grant of reliefs
sought for in the writ petitions. Therefore, they will stand dismissed.
However, considering the fact that the petitioners are
earning a living by running the pollution testing centres, I deem it
appropriate to direct that show cause notices issued to the
petitioners in each of the cases shall be finally adjudicated after
affording to them an opportunity of being heard within a period of
one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
judgment. Petitioners shall appear before the competent authority
either by themselves or by authorized representative at 11 a.m. on
18.03.2025.
6. Before parting this case, I must observe that I am of the
opinion that the Transport Commissioner, Kerala must consider
whether show cause notices of the nature issued to the petitioners
have to be issued henceforth after affixing reference number/serial
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
number, etc so that there is no allegation that testing centres are
being arbitrarily picked up for the purposes of issuance of show
cause notices and show cause notices issued to several testing
centres have been dropped at a later point of time.
Writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
nk
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9531/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.28422/2024
DATED 07.10.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITH THE LIST
OF VEHICLES ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 07.03.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION TO THE SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
10.03.2025
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9536/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE CONDUCT OF
THE TESTING CENTRE FOR THE PERIOD FROM
28.05.2020 TO 27.05.2025, PRINTOUT OF
WHICH WAS TAKEN ON 15.11.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITH
THE LIST OF VEHICLES ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED
07.03.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2025
2025:KER:22074
W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9539/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE CONDUCT OF
THE TESTING CENTRE FOR THE PERIOD FROM
10.12.2024 TO 09.12.2029, PRINTOUT OF
WHICH WAS TAKEN ON 10.12.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE WITH LIST
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 07.03.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER HAS
SUBMITTED HIS EXPLANATION TO THE SHOW
CAUSE NOTICE AND TRUE COPY OF THE SAME
DATED 10.03.2025
