Akhil C.A v Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Ponmangal Tower Thellakam P.O., Kottayam District; Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Mini Civil Station, Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha District; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Union of India

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 18159 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` 1AKHIL C.A AGED 28 YEARS S/O ASHOKAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MANNANCHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688538 BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR BIJOY SAM GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` |`1`|`REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),`| |---|---| ||`PONMANGAL TOWER THELLAKAM P.O.,`| ||`KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686630`| |`2`|`JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER`| ||`SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,`| ||`MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA PO,`| ||`ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524`| |`3`|`TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER`| ||`TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`| |`4`|`STATE OF KERALA`| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`| |`5`|`UNION OF INDIA`| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY,`| ||`SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001`| ||`SMT PARVATHY KOTTOL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER`| |`THIS `|`WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON`| |`12.06.2023,`|`THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`| ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C.S.DIAS, J. ``` ------------------------- ``` ## W.P.(C.) No.18159 of 2023 `-------------------------` Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2023 ## JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, interalia, to quash Ext.P3 order issued by the first respondent suspending the driving license of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, he is a driver by profession holding Ext.P1 heavy driving license. On 23.06.2022, the first respondent intercepted the vehicle that was driven by the petitioner on the allegation that the vehicle was overloaded. The first respondent suspended the driving license of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'Act) does not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend the driving license. The first ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` respondent does not have the power to invoke the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Act. Perhaps, the first respondent acting on Ext.P3 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 order, in view of the interpretation given in Ext.P3, 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. In an identical situation, persons similarly situated to the petitioner had filed W.P.(C.) No.16188/2023 before this Court and Ext.P6 order has been passed. Ext.P3 order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Parvathy Kottol, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 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. Therefore, Ext.P3 order may be quashed. 5. Smt.Parvathy Kottol on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner has deliberately not produced the e-challan that was issued by 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 ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` overloaded. It was on the strength of the weighment certificate that the respondents have issued Ext.P3 order. 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 empowers the Licensing Authority, after giving holder of the 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 lays down that nuisance or danger to public includes carrying overload in a goods carriage vehicle. 8. Having considered the pleadings and ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 is an appealable order under Section 19(3) of the Act, I am of the definite view that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it will be upto the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies. But, I permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if so advised, before the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Ext.P3 order. Resultantly, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The petitioner’s prayer to quash Ext.P3 order is rejected. (ii) The petitioner may file an appeal against Ext.P3 before the Appellate Authority as provided ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` under Section 19(3) of the Act, if so advised, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (iii) If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iv) Until such time orders are passed on the proposed appeal, the respondents shall not revoke the license of the petitioner. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/15-06 ``` WPC No.18159 of 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18159/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENSE NO.KL 04 20130004711 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT RELATING VEHICLE NO.KL-04AR-0222 ISSUED BY THE RTA, ALAPPUZHA ON 24.02.2021 VALID UPTO 23.02.2026 EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUSPENDING EXHIBIT.P1 LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER FOR 3 MONTHS EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/24/2022-TC DATED 09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PROSECUTION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 FILED AS MV PETTY CASE 135/2021 ON 22.10.2021 BY A MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER MADE IN W.P. (C).NO.16188/2023 DATED 30.05.2023 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL ``` ## `TRUE COPY` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ```