In, Abdul Sathar & Others vs Union of India & Others, a Single Bench of Kerala HC has held that, on bare perusal of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and amended Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules the liability of alteration of vehicle is on the owner or manufacturer of the vehicle and not on the shopkeeper.
Facts
Inter alia alleges that petitioners are the shopkeepers selling the accessories of vehicles and sun glass films including glaze glasses and safety glasses for buildings and vehicles. All the materials are conforming with the provisions of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 amended in 2020. The provisions of the sections noticed in the show cause notices issued by the Transport Department would only be applicable to owners of the vehicle and the manufacturers but not to the shopkeepers.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed praying inter alia that in circumstance stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP for disposal of writ petition.
Contention Made
Petitioner: That it would be a total farcical exercise for the petitioners to reply to the show cause notice as they are without jurisdiction and prays for an interim prayer.
Court Observation
The Single Bench of Kerala HC observed that, on bare perusal of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and amended Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules the liability of alteration of vehicle is on the owner or manufacturer of the vehicle and not on the shopkeeper.
Court Judgment
The Kerala HC after considering the prima facie evidence has held that the notices are without jurisdiction; therefore, the writ jurisdiction of this Court can be entertained even without replying the same.
Case: Abdul Sathar & Others vs Union of India & Others
Citation: WP(C) NO. 28289 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Amit Rawal
Decided: 31st August, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
