Alli Rani v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.18892 OF 2019(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ALLI RANI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.REMANAN, ELANKATHU KIZHAKATHIL, MANAYILKULANGARA, THIRUMULLAVARAM.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR** |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**| |---|---| |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.**| |**2**|**ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,**| ||**ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICE,**| ||**ENFORCEMENT, KOTTARAKARA,**| ||**KOLLAM, PIN-691 506.**| |**3**|**ASSISTNAT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,**| ||**ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICE,**| ||**KOLLAM PIN-691 001.**| ||**SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| |**THIS **|**WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR**| |**ADMISSION **|**ON 05.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY**| |**DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**|| W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-02/BB-2024, covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kollam to consider Ext.P5 request dated 02.07.2019 and to permit her to remit fee for exhibiting figures of film stars on the body of the said contract carriage. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to stop all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 show-cause notice dated 23.06.2019 issued by the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector (Enforcement), Kottarakkara and Ext.P3 show-cause notice dated 24.06.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kollam. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to release the original certificate of registration of the petitioner's contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-02/BB-2024. W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -3- 2. On 11.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the same was adjourned to 15.07.2019 for further consideration. On 15.07.2019, the learned Government Pleader sought time to file counter affidavit. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner's contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-02/BB2024 was intercepted on 23.06.2019 by the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, while it was proceeding to Punalur, exhibiting pictures of famous film stars on both sides of the bus body, music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lamps and spot lights. On verification, it was found that the petitioner obtained fitness certificate for the said vehicle on 15.06.2019. The 3[rd] respondent Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector reported that the petitioner obtained fitness certificate in a fraudulent way by concealing the graphic pictures on the bus body by affixing white sticker. Since there is prohibition in the exhibition of all kinds of graphic figures on the body of a transport vehicle, which would cause distraction to other vehicles W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -4- including pedestrians on public road, as held by this Court in the judgment dated 27.09.2018 W.P.(C)No.4720 of 2018 **[Ruby S. v. Transport Commissioner and another - 2019** **(1) KLT 45]** , the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 showcause notice dated 23.06.2019 of the 2[nd] respondent, which was followed by Ext.P3 show-cause notice dated 24.06.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle for inspection after removing the unauthorised fittings and figures or to show-cause why the fitness certificate shall not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation dated 25.06.2019 before the 4[th] respondent, which was followed by Ext.P5 request dated 02.07.2019. In Ext.P5, the petitioner has pointed out that she has already removed the audio system, laser lights, etc., and therefore, she may be permitted to ply the vehicle with the picture of film stars on the bus body, since advertisements are permitted in transport vehicles, including those owned by KSRTC. It is also pointed out that challenging the discrimination in permitting such advertisements in the vehicles owned by KSRTC, a case has already been filed before W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -5- this Court, which is pending consideration. In the counter affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent has stated that during fitness test, the petitioner removed the music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lights and spot lights and she purposefully concealed the graphics figures by pasting white sticker, to deceive the Inspecting Officials. The 2[nd] respondent impounded the certificate of registration of the petitioner's vehicle in exercise of his powers under Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'MV Act'). The certificate of fitness of the vehicle is not yet cancelled. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on the proceedings initiated against the petitioner's contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-02/BB-2024, pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 show-cause notices. 5. At the time of interception of the petitioner's vehicle on 23.06.2019, by the 2[nd] respondent Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, the same was being plied exhibiting figures of film stars on the bus body and it was also fitted with music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lights and spot lights. The said fact is W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -6- not in dispute. According to the petitioner, she had removed the music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lights and spot lights, as directed in Ext.P2 and P3 show-cause notices, and she is yet to remove the figures of film stars exhibited on the bus body. 6. In **Jijith and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KHC 463]** this Court held that, use of flexible LED Lights, multi-colour LED lights, halogen driving lamps, etc. on motor vehicles, which are not specifically provided for in the CMV Rules, is legally impermissible, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** . Moreover, use of such unauthorised lights on motor vehicles will violate the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 360 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'KMV Rules') which mandates that the driver of a motor vehicle shall at all times when the lights of the motor vehicle are in use so manipulate them that danger or undue inconvenience is not caused to any person by dazzling. Contract carriages, which are fitted with such unauthorised flexible LED Lights, multi-colour LED lights, W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -7- halogen driving lamps, etc. c annot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, such unauthorised flexible LED Lights, multi-colour LED lights, halogen driving lamps, etc. will have to be removed and the lamps, direction indicators and reflectors fitted on the vehicles will have to be maintained as specified in Rules 102, 104, 105, 107, 109, etc. of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'CMV Rules'), read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 360 of the KMV Rules. Paragraphs 9 to 9.10 of the said decision read thus; “9. **Lights:-** Rule 102 of the CMV Rules deals with signalling devices, direction indicators and stop lights. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 102, the signal to turn to the right or to the left shall be given by electrically operated direction indicator lamps fitted and maintained so that, the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (1) are met. Rule 104 deals with fitment of reflectors. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 104, the motor vehicles specified in the said sub-rule, manufactured on or after the 1[st] day of April, 2006 shall be fitted with two reflectors, one each at the rear. Rule 105 of the CMV Rule deals with lamps. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 105, save as provided in the said W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -8- rule, every motor vehicle, while being driven in public place during the period half an hour after sunset and at any time when there is no sufficient light, shall be lit with - the lamps enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of sub rule (1), which shall render clearly discernible persons and vehicles on the road at a distance of one hundred and fifty five metres ahead. As per clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 105, a motor vehicle other than three-wheelers, three-wheeled invalid carriages and motorcycles shall have two or four head lamps. As per clause (i) of sub-rule (2), every motor vehicle other than a three-wheeler shall carry two rear lamps showing to the rear a red light visible in the rear from a distance of one hundred and fifty five metres; and as per clause (ii) lamp, which may be the rear lamp or some other device, illuminating with a white light the whole of the registration mark exhibited on the rear of the vehicle, so as to render it legible from a distance of fifteen metres to the rear. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 105 specifies the power and height of front head lamps of a motor vehicle. As per sub-rule (4), the rear lamp shall be fixed either on the centre line of the vehicle or to the right hand side, and save in the case of transport vehicle, at a height of not exceeding one metre above the ground. As per sub-rule (5), in the case of a transport vehicle, the rear light may be fixed at such level as may be necessary to illuminate the registration mark. Rule 106 of the CMV Rules deals with deflection of lights and Rule 107 deals with top lights for every goods vehicle including trailer and semi-trailer other than three-wheelers and vehicles W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -9- with overall width not exceeding 2.1 metres. 9.1. Rule 108 of the CMV Rules prohibit use of red, white or blue light. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 108, no motor vehicle shall show a red light to the front or light other than red to the rear. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1), the provisions of the said sub-rule shall not apply to the internal lighting of the vehicle; or the amber light displayed by direction indicator or top light used on vehicle for operating within the premises such as airports, ports, mines and project sites; the blinker type of red light with purple glass fitted to an ambulance van used for carrying patients or the warning lamps fitted on Road Ambulance in accordance with Annexure I of AIS-125 (Part-1)-2014; white light illuminating the rear number plate; white light used while reversing; etc. As per sub- rule (4) of rule 108, use of multi coloured red, blue and white light shall be permitted only on vehicles specifically designated for such emergency and disaster management duties as may be specified by the Central Government. As per sub-rule (6), on and after the 1[st] April, 2018, the top lights (warning lamps) fitted on Road Ambulances shall be in accordance with AIS-125 (Part 1)-2014, as amended from time to time, for all types of ambulances specified therein, till the corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. Rule 109 of the CMV Rules deals with parking lights with one white or amber parking light on each side in the front and two parking lights one on each side in the rear. Rule 111 deals with prohibition of spot lights or search lights W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -10- on the front of any vehicle except in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the registering authority. 9.2. In pursuance of powers conferred under sub-rule (4) of Rule 108 of the CMV Rules, the Central Government, vide Notification No.1374(E) dated 01.05.2017 specified that the vehicles on office duty which are designated for the following emergency and disaster management duties may be allowed to use multicoloured red, blue and white light on its top, namely, (a) the duties relating to control of fire; (b) the duties by police, defence forces or paramilitary forces for maintenance of law and order; (c) the duties relating to management of natural disasters including earthquake, flood, land slide, cyclone, tsunami and man made disasters including nuclear disaster, chemical disaster and - biological disaster. As per the said notification, t he multi coloured light shall not be put to use when the vehicle is not on the designated duty. Every year, the Transport Department of the State or Union Territory Administration, as the case may be, shall issue a public notice bringing to the notice of the general public the list of authorities to whom the permission to use the vehicles specified in clauses (a) and (b) has been granted and such vehicles shall display on its windscreen the sticker issued by such Transport Department, which shall be in the format prescribed in the notification dated 01.05.2017. As per the said notification, only one sticker shall be issued to the designated officer for one vehicle at one point of time. W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -11- 9.3. The provisions under Rule 102 to Rule 111 of the CMV Rules make it explicitly clear that a motor vehicle shall be fitted with only the signalling devices, reflectors and lamps as specified thereunder. The number, position, colour and specifications of the lamps, direction indicators and reflectors are dealt with in detail in the said provisions. As per the mandate of the aforesaid provisions of the CMV Rules, the lamps, direction indicators and reflectors fitted on a motor vehicle has to be maintained as specified thereunder, failing which it cannot be said that such vehicle complies with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder. 9.4. In view of Notification No.1374(E) dated 01.05.2017 issued by the Central Government, use of multi-coloured red, blue and white light on the top of the vehicle is restricted to vehicles on office duty, which are designated for the emergency and disaster management duties specified in that notification, i.e., duties relating to control of fire; maintenance of law and order; and disaster management. Further, the multi-coloured light shall not be put to use when the vehicle is not on the designated duty. 9.5. In **Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** , after referring to the provisions under Rules 100, 104, 104A, 106, 119 and 120 of the CMV Rules, the Apex Court held that the CMV Rules 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 W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -12- 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. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for. The Apex Court held further that, these provisions 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. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the said decision read thus; “18. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Rules 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. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the Court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for. These are the specifications which are in consonance with the prescribed IS No. 2553 - Part 2 of 1992 and nothing is ambiguous or uncertain. 19. Let us take a few examples. Rule 104 requires that every motor vehicle, other than three wheelers W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -13- and motor cycles shall be fitted with two red reflectors, one each on both sides at their rear. Every motor cycle shall be fitted with at least one red reflector at the rear. Rule 104A provides that two white reflectors in the front of the vehicle on each side and visible to oncoming vehicles from the front at night. 20. Rule 106 deals with deflections of lights and requires that no lamp showing a light to the front shall be used on any motor vehicle including construction equipment vehicle unless such lamp is so constructed, fitted and maintained that the beam of light emitted therefrom is permanently deflected downwards to such an extent that it is not capable of dazzling any person whose eye position is at a distance of 8 metres from the front of lamp etc. Rule 119 and Rule 120 specify the kind, size and manner in which the horn and silencer are to be fixed in a vehicle. 21. These provisions 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.” 9.6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** every motor vehicle, including transport vehicles shall be fitted with the lights which are specifically provided for in the CMV Rules and what has not been specifically stated in the said Rules would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from that Rules. Therefore, no motor vehicle, including a W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -14- ## transport vehicle, can be fitted with lights which are not specifically provided for in the CMV Rules. 9.7. The certificate of fitness of a transport vehicle issued in Form No.38 contains a certification that the vehicle complies with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 62, the renewal of a fitness certificate shall be made only after carrying out the tests specified in the Table given in Rule 62. Rule 62 contemplates checking the condition of spark plug/suppressor cap/high tension cable, head lamp beams, other lights, reflectors, bulbs, rear view mirror, safety glass, horn, silencer, dash board equipment, windshield wiper, exhaust emission, braking system, speedometer and steering gear; functioning of all the aforesaid items except the reflectors, bulbs, rear view mirror, safety glasses and exhaust emission; the make/rating, etc. of spark plug/suppressor cap/high tension cable, bulbs and safety glass as per original equipment recommendations. While checking other lights it has to be ensured that unauthorised lights are not fitted; while checking reflectors it has to be ensured that the colour of reflectors and reflective tapes are as per Rule 104; while checking bulbs it has to be ensured that head light bulbs wattage, especially halogen, is not higher than those indicated in IS 1606-1993 and also that halogen bulbs with P45t caps are not used in all vehicles; while checking safety glasses it has to be ensured that laminated windscreen glass is used for vehicles manufactured from April, 1996 onwards; etc. W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -15- Therefore, a transport vehicle fitted with unauthorised lights, cannot be treated as a vehicle which complies with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. 9.8. In the instant case, Exts.R5(a), R5(b), R5(c) and R6(a) photographs, the photographs produced along with the report of the inspection team, and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018 produced in two compact discs would show that the petitioners' contract carriages are fitted with - unauthorised multi coloured lights and LED strips all over the body, causing distraction to other drivers and also to road users. As per the report of the inspection team, contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-44/D-7473 is fitted with large number of unauthorised LED lights, flexible LED lights on wheel arches, top and bottom of the windows throughout the length of the vehicle, etc. A wiring kit installed without any sleeving or insulation is noticed at the lower end of the body. Contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-17/N-7374 is fitted with similar unauthorised LED lights, flexible LED lights (except around windows) and wiring kit without any sleeving or insulation. Contract carriage bearing - registration No.KL-45/R-959 is fitted with multi coloured LED lights inside the windscreen glass and front grill and the entire rear side of the vehicle is lit up. Evidence of removal of unauthorised LED lights, wiring, etc. was noticed by the inspection team, in all the three contract W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -16- carriages. 9.9. As evident from Exts.R5(a) R5(b) and R6(a) photographs, in addition to four head lamps, two halogen driving lamps and two fog lamps are fitted on the front of contract carriages bearing Nos.KL-17/N-7374 and KL45/R-959. Contract carriage bearing registration No.KL44/D-7473 is having six head lamps (See: video VID20180814142745), as against the statutory requirement of four head lamps. Rule 111 of the CMV Rules prohibit spot lights or search lights on the front of any vehicle except in exceptional circumstances with the prior approval of the registering authority. As per Rule 125B of the CMV Rules, which deals with special requirement of transport vehicles that are driven on hills, such four wheeled transport vehicles as may be notified by the State Governments in the Official Gazette plying on such routes or areas on hilly terrains shall be fitted with fog lamp. 9.10. Use of flexible LED Lights, multi-colour LED lights, halogen driving lamps, etc. on motor vehicles, which are not specifically provided for in the CMV Rules, is legally impermissible, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** . Moreover, use of such unauthorised lights on motor vehicles will violate the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 360 of the KMV Rules, which mandates that the driver of a motor vehicle shall at all times when the lights of the motor vehicle are in use so manipulate them that danger or undue inconvenience is not caused to any person by W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -17- dazzling. The petitioners' contract carriages, which are fitted with such unauthorised flexible LED Lights, multicolour LED lights, halogen driving lamps, etc. c annot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, the petitioners will have to remove such unauthorised flexible LED Lights, multi-colour LED lights, halogen driving lamps, etc. and maintain the lamps, direction indicators and reflectors fitted on their vehicles as specified in Rules 102, 104, 105, 107, 109, etc. of the CMV Rules, read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 360 of the KMV Rules.” 7. In **Jijith's case (supra)** this Court held that, the internal lighting in a contract carriage, which is a public service vehicle, is for the purpose of providing reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment. As provided under Rule 286 of the KMV Rules, the passenger compartment of a public service vehicle shall be furnished with electric lights adequate to give reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment. Therefore, the passenger compartment of a contract carriage cannot be fitted with - continuously blinking multi coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc., in order to convert it as a dancing floor. Plying vehicles W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -18- fitted with DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multicoloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. for internal lighting will certainly cause distraction to other drivers and also to road users. Moreover, the continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. used for internal lighting in the passenger compartment pose a potential health hazard to the passengers. Contract carriages, which are fitted with DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. for internal lighting c annot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, such DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. used for internal lighting will have to be removed and electric lights adequate to give reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment will have to be maintained, as specified under the Rules. Paragraphs 10 to 10.5 of the said decision read thus; “10. **Internal lighting:-** The passenger compartment of the petitioners' contract carriages are fitted with W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -19- continuously blinking multi-coloured LED/laser lights, in order to convert it as a dancing floor for the passengers. This is evident from the photographs produced along with the report of the inspection team, and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018 produced in two compact discs. According to the petitioners, such lights are required to illuminate the passenger compartment of their vehicles for the benefit of the passengers, which cannot be said to be impermissible under any of the provisions of the MV Act. 10.1. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 108 of the CMV Rules, no motor vehicle shall show a red light to the front or light other than red to rear. Going by clause (i) of the proviso to sub-rule (1), the provisions under this rule shall not apply to the internal lighting of the vehicle. Rule 128 of the CMV Rules deals with special provisions for tourist vehicles, which are granted tourist permits under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the MV Act, read with Rule 82 of the CMV Rules, by the State Transport Authority. Sub-rule (12) of Rule 128 deals with lighting of tourist vehicles. As per clause (i) of sub-rule (12), the passenger compartment of a tourist vehicle shall be adequately illuminated; arrangement shall be provided to eliminate reflection of the light from the passenger compartment on the windscreen; and in addition to the lights in passenger compartment, at least two nightlights with coloured domes, shall be provided in the passenger compartment. As per clause (iii) of sub-rule (12), one independently operated light fitting shall be W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -20- provided for illumination of the driver’s or attendant’s seat area. 10.2. Clause (35) of Section 2 of the MV Act define 'public service vehicle' to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Part III of Chapter VII of the KMV Rules deals with special rules applicable to every public service vehicle other than an autorickshaw. Rule 286 of the KMV Rules, which deals with internal lighting, provides that every vehicle shall be furnished with one or more electric lights adequate to give reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment or compartments but of such power or so screened as not to impair the forward vision of the driver. 10.3. The internal lighting in a contract carriage, which is a public service vehicle, is for the purpose of providing reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment. As provided under Rule 286 of the KMV Rules, the passenger compartment of a public service vehicle shall be furnished with electric lights adequate to give reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment. Therefore, the passenger compartment of a contract carriage cannot be fitted with continuously - blinking multi coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc., in order to convert it as a dancing floor. 10.4. As evident from the photographs produced along with the report of the inspection team, and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -21- 14.08.2018 produced in two compact discs, the passenger compartments of the petitioners' contract carriages are fitted with continuously blinking multicoloured LED lights, laser lights, etc., which is not legally permissible in view of the statutory provision referred to hereinbefore. As per the report of the inspection team, the passenger compartment of contract carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-44/D-7473 and KL-45/R-959 are fitted with DJ (Disc Jockey) rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc., and the passenger compartment of contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-17/N-7374 is fitted with continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. (See: video VID20180814143538; VID201808 14143451; etc.) 10.5. Plying vehicles fitted with DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. for internal lighting will certainly cause distraction to other drivers and also to road users. Moreover, the continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. used for internal lighting in the passenger compartment pose a potential health hazard to the passengers. As per the provisions under Rule 286 of the KMV Rules, electric lights adequate to give reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment alone can be provided in the passenger compartment of a public service vehicle. The petitioners' contract carriages, which are fitted with DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -22- laser lights, etc. for internal lighting c annot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, the petitioners will have to remove such DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. used for internal lighting and maintain electric lights adequate to give reasonable illumination throughout the passenger compartment, as specified under Rule 286 of the KMV Rules.” 8. In **Jijith's case (supra)** this Court held that, neither the provisions of Rule 289 of the KMV Rules nor the provisions under AIS: 052 (Rev.-1): 2008 enable installation of high-power audio system with multiple power amplifiers, speakers and sub-woofers in a contract carriage. Loud music from such high-power audio systems will certainly endanger the safety of other road users and will cause inconvenience to them; will distract the attention of the attention of the driver of the vehicle and impair his hearing; thereby violating the provisions under Regulations 3 and also clauses (3) and (6) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 (for brevity, 'MV (Driving) Regulations, 2017'). Loud music from such high-power audio systems will also violate the W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -23- provisions of clause (10) of Regulation 5, which provides that the driver shall ensure that loud music is not played in the vehicle. Paragraphs 11 to 11.8 of the said decision read thus; **-** “11. **Audio visual devices:** As per clause (o) of subsection (1) of Section 110 of the MV Act, the Central Government may make rules with respect to the - placement of audio visual or radio or tape recorder type of devices in public vehicles. Clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 111, which empowered the State Government to make rules with respect to the placement - of audio visual or radio or tape recorder type of devices in the vehicle, was omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. Rule 289 of the KMV Rules made by the State Government, in exercise of its power under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 111 (prior to its omission), provides that no public service vehicle other than a contract carriage shall be installed with any audio-visual devices. In **George v. State of Kerala [2005 (2) KLT 717]** , a decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, this Court held that Rule 289 of the KMV Rules framed by the State Government, in exercise of its power under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 111 of the MV Act, continues to be in force until repealed or replaced by new rules framed by the Central Government. 11.1. As per Regulation 3 of the MV (Driving) Regulations, 2017 made by the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 118 of the MV W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -24- Act, which deals with duty towards other road users and general public, no vehicle shall be driven, stopped or parked on a road or in a public place in such a manner as is likely to endanger the safety of or cause inconvenience to other road users. Regulation 5 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per clause (3) of Regulation 5, the driver shall at all times maintain a good lookout and concentrate on the road and traffic and avoid any activity which distract or is likely to distract his attention. As per clause (6), the driver shall ensure that his view is not obstructed and his hearing is not impaired by passengers, animals, load, equipment in the vehicle or by the conditions of the vehicle. Clause (10) of Regulation 5 mandates that the driver shall ensure that loud music is not played in the vehicle. 11.2. As per clause (43) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 'tourist vehicle' is a contract carriage, constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as may be prescribed in this behalf. Tourist permits are granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the MV Act, read with Rule 82 of the CMV Rules, by the State Transport Authority. Rule 85 of the CMV Rules deals with additional conditions of tourist permit. As per sub-rule (7) of Rule 85, the tourist vehicle shall be painted in white colour with a blue ribbon of five centimetres width at the centre of the exterior of the body and the word 'Tourist' shall be inserted on two sides of the vehicle within a circle of sixty centimetres diameter. Rule 128 of the CMV Rules deals with special W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -25- provisions for tourist vehicles other than motor cabs, etc. Sub-rule (13) of Rule 128 of the CMV Rules deals with fittings and accessories. As per clause (xviii) of sub-rule (13), a tourist vehicle shall be equipped with public address system with at least four speakers suitably located in the passenger compartment. 11.3. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 125C of the CMV Rules, on and after the dates specified in the said rule, the testing and approval for body building of new models of buses with seating capacity of 13 or more passengers excluding driver shall be in accordance with AIS: 052 (Rev.-1) 2008 as amended from time to time, for vehicles mentioned therein, till corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. As per the said specifications, all Type I, Type II and Type III public service buses shall be provided with Audio/Visual or Audio-Visual Information System permitting driver or recorded or digitized human speech/visual messages, to inform passengers inside the bus regarding emergency escape provisions, destination, bus stops etc., in order to enhance passenger safety. [Para.2.2.25.1 of AIS: 052 (Rev.-1): 2008 (Amalgamating amendments 1 to 8) published in May, 2017] 11.4. Neither the provisions of Rule 289 of the KMV Rules nor the provisions under AIS: 052 (Rev.-1): 2008 enable installation of high-power audio system with multiple power amplifiers, speakers and sub-woofers in a contract carriage. Loud music from such high-power audio W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -26- systems will certainly endanger the safety of other road users and will cause inconvenience to them; will distract the attention of the attention of the driver of the vehicle and impair his hearing; thereby violating the provisions under Regulations 3 and also clauses (3) and (6) of Regulation 5 of the MV (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Loud music from such high-power audio systems will also violate the provisions of clause (10) of Regulation 5, which provides that the driver shall ensure that loud music is not played in the vehicle. 11.5. The passenger compartments of the petitioners' contract carriages are fitted with high-power audio systems, as evident from Ext.R6(a)(3) photograph, the photographs produced along with the inspection report, and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018, which are placed on record in two compact discs. As per the report of the inspection team, contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-44/D7473 is fitted with an audio system comprising of an amplified audio player, five booster amplifiers, ten - speakers/woofers, two heavy box sub woofers having 1350 watts Peak Music Power Output; contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-17/N-7374 is fitted with an audio system comprising of an amplified audio player, six booster amplifiers, an equalizer, ten speakers/woofers, - two heavy box sub woofers having 1350 watts Peak Music Power Output; and contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-45/R-959 is fitted with an audio system comprising of an amplified audio player, four W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -27- booster amplifiers, an equalizer cum amplifier, twelve speakers/woofers, etc. The high-power audio systems fitted in the petitioners' contract carriages produce loud sound, which is evident from the video clippings. (See: video VID20180814144838; VID2018081414 4818; VID20180814145251, VID20180814143321; etc.) The audio player, booster amplifiers, equalizer, etc. are installed in the driver's compartment, without eliminating reflection of light from the control panel of the equipment on the windscreen of the vehicle. 11.6. Installation of high-power audio system with multiple booster/power amplifiers, speakers and subwoofers cannot be permitted in a motor vehicle, since the loud sound produced by such audio systems with rating of several thousand watts of Peak Music Power Output will not only impair the hearing of the driver and the passengers, but also cause distraction to other drivers and road users. Therefore, no motor vehicle can be fitted with high-power speakers or sub-woofers with multiple - booster/ power amplifiers. Fixing high power speakers or - sub woofers, with enclosures made of wood or other materials, inside the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle cannot be permitted. Similarly, installation of DJ (Disc Jockey) sound system with DJ mixer, DJ rotating LED lights, laser lights, Karaoke systems, etc. which are typically meant for dance party, cannot be permitted in the passenger compartment of a transport vehicle. The continuously blinking DJ rotating LED lights, multicoloured LED/ laser lights fitted in the passenger W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -28- compartment, in order to convert it as a dancing floor for the passengers, will certainly cause distraction to other drivers and also to road users. Moreover, mixing up of AC and DC power supply for such high-power audio systems with DJ mixer, DJ dancing lights, laser lights, etc., violating safety standards, poses a potential fire hazard to the passengers. 11.7. In **Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v. Union of India [(2005) 5 SCC 733]** the Apex Court, in the context of noise pollution in public place vis a vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed that Indian judicial opinion has been uniform in recognising the right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits as an inroad into that right. People indulge in making noise beyond tolerable limits and create a health hazard unmindful of consequences which are likely to befall not only others but also themselves who create noise. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems has to be regulated, even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity. 11.8. The loud sound produced by such high-power audio W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -29- systems in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle poses a potential health hazard to the passengers. The use of high-power audio system with multiple booster/power amplifiers, speakers and subwoofers producing such loud noise is legally impermissible in a motor vehicle, in view of the provisions under the MV (Driving) Regulations, 2017 referred to hereinbefore and also the provisions under Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Therefore, the petitioners' contract carriages, which are fitted with high-power audio system having multiple booster/power amplifiers, speakers and sub-woofers producing loud noise, and also DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. c annot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, the petitioners will have to remove such high-power audio system having multiple booster/power amplifiers, speakers and sub-woofers producing loud noise, and also DJ rotating LED lights, continuously blinking multi-coloured LED lights, laser lights, etc. and maintain an audio system with four or six speakers, depending upon the size of the passenger compartment, with sufficient power to distribute reasonable sound throughout the passenger compartment.” 9. In **Jijith's case (supra)** this Court held that, the W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -30- paintwork or varnish of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition, which is the mandate of Rule 264 of the KMV Rules. If the State or Regional Transport Authority has laid down any specifications like uniform colour scheme, the paintwork of the transport vehicle shall be in accordance with that specifications. Any figure or writing exhibited on the transport vehicle, other than the name and address of the operator to be painted or otherwise firmly affixed as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the 'emergency information panel' provided under Rule 134 of the CMV Rules for goods carriages used for transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules, painted on the body of the vehicle; the name of the institution exhibited in educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per Rule 291 of the KMV Rules; etc., falls within the scope of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules. Any such figure or writing exhibited on the transport vehicle with an object to invite public attention and to promote the contract or stage carriage service of the operator will attract the provisions of Rule 191 of the KMV W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -31- Rules. The exhibition of writings and figures on vehicles by its very nature are intended to attract attention, which would cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles, cyclists and even pedestrians on the public road. Driver distraction is one of the major causes of road accidents, which is a situation where the attention of the driver is diverted to any other forms of activities, which may affect the concentration of driving activity as well as the safety of the passengers and others on public road. Earning of revenue by the State by the levy of fee under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules or generation of some additional income by the operator of the transport vehicle should not be at the cost of public safety. Therefore, exhibition of writings or figures with the sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract or stage carriage service should not be permitted by levying fee under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules. While approving the matter intended to be exhibited on the vehicle, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, the State or the Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that it does not cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles and also cyclists and pedestrians on W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -32- public road. No approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the body of a transport vehicle, at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the 'emergency information panel' as per Rule 134 of the CMV Rules for goods carriages used for transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules; the name of the institution exhibited in educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per Rule 291 of the KMV Rules; etc. In the case of a stage carriage in respect of which uniform colour scheme has been implemented under Rule 264 of the KMV Rules, vide the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 04.01.2018, no approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc., over the three equally spaced white lines painted below the height of the wheel arch. Paragraphs 12 to 12.8 of the said decision read thus; - - “12. **Paintwork:** As per clause (xviii) of sub-section (2) of Section 92 of the MV Act, a State Government may W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -33- make rules for regulating the painting or marking of transport vehicle and display of advertising matters thereon, and in particular prohibiting the painting or marking of transport vehicles in such colour or manner as to induce any person to believe that the vehicle is used for the transport of mails. In exercise of the rule making power under the said clause, the State Government made Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, which deals with prohibition of advertisement or writing on vehicles; and Rule 264, which deals with paintwork or varnish. 12.1. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules provides that no advertising device, figure or writing shall be exhibited on any transport vehicle, save as may be specified by the State or Regional Transport Authority by general or specific order, and on payment of the fee prescribed in sub-section (1), for a period of one year or part thereof for each vehicle. As per Regulation 26 of the Driving Regulations, 2017, which deals with bar on traffic impairment, unless validly permitted by the competent authority under the MV Act or the rules made thereunder, no driver shall display any advertisement on the vehicle. 12.2. In **Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kochi v. State of Kerala and others (2016 (3) KHC 693)** , in the context of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, this Court held that the said Rule provides for imposition of fee not only for advertisements, but also for figures or writings. After referring to the provisions under Rule 134 of the CMV Rules, which deals with 'emergency information panel' for goods carriages used for W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -34- transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods, this Court held that the writings contained in tanker trucks operated by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited by exhibiting its name in large and bold letters, even though has the characteristics of imposing with fee as prescribed under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, in view of the stipulations and prescriptions contained under Rule 134 of the CMV Rules, are not liable to be imposed with fee for such writings made on the tanker trucks. However, this Court made it clear that, if any inscriptions or writings are made on such transport vehicles inviting public attention for the products of the petitioner company, Rule 191 of the KMV Rules will come into play. 12.3. The contract carriage permits issued to the petitioners are granted under Section 74 of the MV Act. Section 84 of the MV Act deals with general conditions attaching to all permits. As per clause (g) of Section 84, the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permits relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle centred as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters. Similarly, the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 have to be legibly painted on every transport vehicle, save in the case of a motor cab or any motor vehicle belonging to the State or Central Government, on the left hand side of the vehicle, in English letters and numerals, each not less than two and a half centimetres W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -35- square. In the case of educational institution bus and private service vehicle, Rule 291 of the KMV Rules provides that t he name of the institution shall be written conspicuously at the top of the front and rear ends and on the left side of the body of the vehicle and the writings shall be horizontal. 12.4. Rule 264 of the KMV Rules, which deals with paintwork or varnish, provides that the paintwork or varnish of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition and in accordance with the specifications, if any, laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authority. In exercise of the powers under Rule 264, uniform colour scheme has been implemented for different classes of stage carriages operating throughout the State as City/Town Services, Mofussil/Ordinary Services and Limited Stop/Ordinary Services, vide the decision dated 04.01.2018 of the State Transport Authority. The colour scheme prescribed as per the said decision of the State Transport Authority reads thus; - City/Town Services - Lime Green (colour value = #338e31) with three equally spaced white lines below the height of the wheel arch. - - Mofussil/Ordinary Deep Sky Blue (colour value = Services #12bce0) with three equally spaced white lines below the height of the wheel arch. Limited Stop - Maroon (colour value = Ordinary Services #871414) with three equally spaced white lines below the height of the wheel arch. W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -36- As per the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 04.01.2018 a stage carriage shall be in the uniform colour scheme specified therein, with effect from 01.02.2018 and the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority is directed to ensure the same at the time of producing the vehicle for certificate of fitness or renewal of certificate of fitness. It is also specified that no other graphics, figures or colour schemes other than those permitted under Rule 191 (exhibition of advertisement) of the KMV Rules shall be allowed. 12.5. As already noticed, the paintwork or varnish of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition, which is the mandate of Rule 264 of the KMV Rules. If the State or Regional Transport Authority has laid down any specifications like uniform colour scheme, the paintwork of the transport vehicle shall be in accordance with that specifications. Any figure or writing exhibited on the transport vehicle, other than the name and address of the operator to be painted or otherwise firmly affixed as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the 'emergency information panel' provided under Rule 134 of the CMV Rules for goods carriages used for transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules, painted on the body of the vehicle; the name of the institution exhibited in educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per Rule 291 of the KMV Rules; etc., falls within the scope of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules. Any such figure or writing exhibited on the W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -37- transport vehicle with an object to invite public attention and to promote the contract or stage carriage service of the operator will attract the provisions of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules. 12.6. The exhibition of writings and figures on vehicles by its very nature are intended to attract attention, which would cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles, cyclists and even pedestrians on the public road. Driver distraction is one of the major causes of road accidents, which is a situation where the attention of the driver is diverted to any other forms of activities, which may affect the concentration of driving activity as well as the safety of the passengers and others on public road. Earning of revenue by the State by the levy of fee under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules or generation of some additional income by the operator of the transport vehicle should not be at the cost of public safety. Therefore, exhibition of writings or figures with the sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract or stage carriage service should not be permitted by levying fee under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules. 12.7. The paintwork of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition, as contemplated by Rule 264 of the KMV Rules. While approving the matter intended to be exhibited on the vehicle, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, the State or the Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that it does not cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles and also W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -38- cyclists and pedestrians on public road. No approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the body of a transport vehicle, at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the 'emergency information panel' as per Rule 134 of the CMV Rules for goods carriages used for transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules; the name of the institution exhibited in educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per Rule 291 of the KMV Rules; etc. In the case of a stage carriage in respect of which uniform colour scheme has been implemented under Rule 264 of the KMV Rules, vide the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 04.01.2018, no approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc., over the three equally spaced white lines painted below the height of the wheel arch. 12.8. In the instant case, the entire body of the petitioners' contract carriages is painted with writings, graphics and gigantic human figures, etc. causing distraction to other drivers and also to road users, as evident from Exts.R5(a) and R6(a) photographs, the photographs produced along with the report of the inspection team, and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018, produced in two compact discs. The petitioners' contract carriages with W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -39- such graphics, gigantic human figures, writings, etc. painted on the body (even at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules; etc.) cannot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, the petitioners will have to remove all such graphics, gigantic human figures, writings, etc., exhibited on their vehicles with an object to invite public attention and to promote their contract carriage services, and maintain the paintwork of their transport vehicles in a clean and sound condition, as contemplated by Rule 264 of the KMV Rules.” 10. In **Jijith's case (supra)** this Court held that, in view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the CMV Rules and the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** , tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible. No approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, shall be granted for exhibition of W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -40- any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the safety glasses of a transport vehicle, which shall always be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than that prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. Moreover, as per the mandate of Rule 278 of the KMV Rules, every vehicle shall be so constructed that save for the front pillars of the body, the driver shall have a clear vision both to the front and through an angle of ninety - degrees to his right or left hand side, as the case may be, and the front pillars of the body shall be so constructed as to cause the least possible obstruction to the vision of the driver. When tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible, as per the mandate of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules and the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** , contract carriages with such writings, figures, sliding 'cloth curtains', 'tinted film' (if any), etc. cannot be treated as vehicles which comply with the W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -41- provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, all such writings, figures, sliding 'cloth curtains', 'tinted film' (if any), etc. will have to be removed and the safety glass will have to be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than that prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules, and with a clear vision to the driver, both to the front and through an angle of ninety degrees to his right or left-hand side, as the case may be, as prescribed under Rule 278 of the KMV Rules. Paragraphs 13 to 13.9 of the said decision read thus; “13. **S afety glass:-** Rule 100 of the CMV Rules deals with safety glasses. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 100, the glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side window are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50% and shall conform to the standards specified in sub-rule (2). Rule 278 of the KMV Rules provides that, every vehicle shall be so constructed that save for the front pillars of the body, the driver shall have a clear vision both to the front and W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -42- - through an angle of ninety degrees to his right or left hand side, as the case may be. The front pillars of the body shall be so constructed as to cause the least possible obstruction to the vision of the driver. 13.1. In **Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** the Apex Court prohibited the use of black films of any visual transmission of light percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. The Apex Court ordered that the Home Secretary, Director General/ Commissioner of Police of the respective States/Centre shall ensure compliance with the direction contained in the judgment, which shall become operative and enforceable with effect from 04.05.2012. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the said decision reads thus; “39. The manufacturer of the vehicle may manufacture the vehicles with tinted glasses which have visual light transmission (VLT) of safety glasses windscreen (front and rear) as 70% VLT and side glasses as 40% VLT, respectively. No black film or any other material can be pasted on the windscreens and side glasses of a vehicle. 27. For the reasons aforestated, we prohibit the use of black films of any VLT percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. The Home Secretary, Director General/ Commissioner of Police of the respective States/ Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction. The directions contained in this judgment shall become operative W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -43- and enforceable with effect from 4.5.2012.” 13.2. In **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** the Apex Court held further that, t he legislative intent attaching due significance to the 'public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the MV Act, 1988, the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the rules framed thereunder. The Apex Court noticed that use of black films certainly helps the criminals to escape from the eyes of the police and aids in the commission of heinous crimes like sexual assault on women, robberies, kidnapping, etc. If these crimes can be reduced by enforcing the prohibition of law, it would further the cause of Rule of Law and Public Interest as well. Paragraph 19 of the said decision reads thus; “19. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the 'public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the Act, the provisions of the Act and more particularly, the Rules framed thereunder. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Rule 100 is capable of any interpretation, then this Court should give it an interpretation which would serve the legislative intent and the object of framing such rules, in preference to one which would frustrate the very purpose of enacting the Rules as well as undermining the public safety and interest. Use of these black films have been proved to be criminal's paradise and a social evil. The petitioner has rightly brought on record the unanimous view of various police authorities right from the States of Calcutta, Tamil Nadu and Delhi W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -44- to the Ministry of Home Affairs that use of black films on vehicles has jeopardized the security and safety interests of the State and public at large. This certainly helps the criminals to escape from the eyes of the police and aids in commission of heinous crimes like sexual assault on women, robberies, kidnapping, etc. If these crimes can be reduced by enforcing the prohibition of law, it would further the cause of Rule of Law and Public Interest as well.” 13.3. In **Avishek Goenka (2) v. Union of India [(2012) 8 SCC 441]** the Apex Court, while dismissing all applications filed seeking clarification and modification of the judgment in **Avishek Goenka's case [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** reiterated that, in terms of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules, no material including films of any visual transmission of light can be pasted on the safety glasses of the car and this law is required to be enforced without demur and delay. Paragraph 23 of the said decision reads thus; “23. We are really not emphasizing on the security threat to the society at large by use of black films but it is a clear violation of law. Thus, we pass the following orders: - (1) All the applications filed for clarification and modification are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. - (2) All the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police are hereby again directed to ensure complete compliance of the judgment of this Court W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -45- in its true spirit and substance. They shall not permit pasting of any material, including films of any VLT, on the safety glasses of any vehicle. (3) **==> picture [18 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** (5) We reiterate that the police authorities shall not only challan the offenders but ensure that the black or any other films or material pasted on the safety glasses are removed forthwith. We make it clear at this stage that we would not initiate any proceedings against the Director Generals of Police/Commissioners of Police of the respective States/Union Territories but issue a clear warning that in the event of non-compliance of the judgment of this Court now, and upon it being brought to the notice of this Court, the Court shall be compelled to take appropriate action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 without any further notice to the said officers. We do express a pious hope that the high responsible officers of the police cadre like Director General/ Commissioner of Police would not permit such a situation to arise and would now ensure compliance of the judgment without default, demur and delay. Copies of this judgment be sent to all concerned by the Registry including the Chief Secretaries of the respective States W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -46- ## forthwith.” 13.4. In **Avishek Goenka's case (2)** , in the applications filed by the manufacturers and distributors of 'tinted films', one of the contentions raised was that in the day time when 'tinted films' are pasted upon the safety glasses, still the face and the body of the occupant of the car is visible from outside. In order to substantiate the said fact, certain photographs were placed on record. The Apex Court, while dismissing the interlocutory applications observed that, the case put forward by the applicants is a case of change in law and not one of improper interpretation, which is not the function of the Apex Court, and that, the Court has interpreted Rule 100 of the CMV Rules as it exists on the Statute book. Paragraphs 17 to 19 of the said decision read thus; “17. The manufacturer and distributors have placed certain material before us, including some photographs and reports of the American Cancer Society, to show that mostly skin cancer is caused by too much exposure to ultra - violet rays. From these photographs, attempt is made to show that in the day time when the films are pasted upon the safety glasses, still the face and the body of the occupant of the car is visible from outside. It is also stated that certain amendments were proposed in the Code of Virginia relating to the use of sun shading and tinting films, on the motor vehicles. Relying upon the material relating to America, it is stated that there are large number of cancer cases in USA and the framers of the law have amended the provisions or are in the process W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -47- of amending the provisions. This itself shows that it is a case of change in law and not one of improper interpretation, which is not the function of this Court. 18. To counter this, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply supported by various documents. This shows that tinted glasses have been banned in a number of countries and it is not permissible to use such glasses on the windows of the vehicle. Annexure-A1 and A3 have been placed on record in relation to New South Wales, Australia, Afghanistan and some other countries. He has also placed on record a complete research article on the cancer scenario in India with future perspective which has specifically compared India as a developing country with developed countries like USA and has found that cancer is much less in India despite the fact that most of the Indian population is exposed to ultra-violet rays for the larger part of the day for earning their livelihood for their daily works, business and other activities. 19. This controversy arising from the submissions founded on factual matrix does not, in our opinion, call for any determination before this Court. As already noticed, the Court has interpreted Rule 100 as it exists on the Statute book. The environment, atmosphere and geographical conditions of each country are different. The level of tolerance and likelihood of exposure to a disease through sun rays or otherwise are subjective matters incapable of being examined objectively in judicial sense. The W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -48- Courts are neither required to venture upon such determination nor would it be advisable.” (underline supplied) 13.5. The provisions under Rule 100 of the CMV Rules, which deals with safety glasses, makes it explicitly clear that the glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall always be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. Similarly, the glasses used for side windows of every motor vehicle shall always be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%. The specifications for safety glasses, which the manufacturer of a motor vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. 13.6. After referring to the aforesaid provisions in the CMV Rules, the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** prohibited the use of black films of any visual transmission of light percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. In **Avishek Goenka's case (2)** , the applications filed by the manufacturers and distributors of 'tinted films' seeking clarification and modification of the judgment in **Avishek Goenka's case (supra)** were dismissed, repelling their contention that that in the day time when 'tinted films' are pasted upon the safety glasses, still the face and the body of the occupant of the car is visible from outside. 13.7. In view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -49- CMV Rules and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible. No approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the safety glasses of a transport vehicle, which shall always be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than that prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 100. Moreover, as per the mandate of Rule 278 of the KMV Rules, every vehicle shall be so constructed that save for the front pillars of the body, the driver shall have a clear vision both to the front and through an angle of ninety degrees to his right - or left hand side, as the case may be, and the front pillars of the body shall be so constructed as to cause the least possible obstruction to the vision of the driver. 13.8. In the instant case, Exts.R5(a) and R6(a) photographs, the photographs produced along with the report of the inspection team, and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018, produced in two compact discs, would show that there are writings and figures on the safety glass fitted on the petitioners' contract carriages. The safety glass of the rear window of the petitioners' contract carriages is covered by gigantic human figures, thereby reducing W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -50- visual transmission of light to 0% in respect of a considerably large area of the rear window. (See: Ext.R5(a); video VID20180814145841; etc.) The safety glass of the windscreen of the petitioners' contract carriages is covered by figures, writings, etc. The colour photographs produced along with the counter affidavits, the inspection report and also the video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018, produced in two compact discs, would show that the safety glass of the rear window and that of the side windows of the petitioners' contract carriages are covered by sliding 'cloth curtains' and it appears that 'sun control' film, i.e., 'tinted film' is pasted on the safety glass of the rear and side windows. 13.9. When tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible, as per the mandate of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the petitioners' contract carriages with such writings, figures, sliding 'cloth curtains', 'tinted film' (if any), etc. cannot be treated as vehicles which comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. Therefore, in order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, the petitioners will have to remove all such writings, figures, sliding 'cloth curtains', W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -51- 'tinted film' (if any), etc. and maintain the safety glass in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than that prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules, and with a clear vision to the driver, both to the front and through an angle of ninety degrees to his right or left-hand side, as the case may be, as prescribed under Rule 278 of the KMV Rules.” 11. In **Saji K.M. v. Deputy Transport Commissioner and others [2019 (3) KLT 163]** this Court held that, in view of the provisions under Rules 102 to 111 of the CMV Rules, Rules 249 and 360 of the KMV Rules, the provisions under the MV (Driving) Regulations, 2017 and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** and **S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]** , every motor vehicle shall be fitted with signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. as per the mandate of the provisions under the CMV Rules and such signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. have to be maintained as such. As per the mandate of Rule 124 of the CMV Rules, every manufacturer shall get the prototype of the part, component or sub-assembly used in the manufacture of a vehicle, for which standards have been notified, approved from W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -52- any agency referred to in Rule 126. Therefore, the signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, lamps, parking lights, etc. fitted on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer, after obtaining prototype approval for those parts under Rule 124 of the CMV Rules, has to be maintained as such. As held by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** the provisions of the CMV 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. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from the CMV Rules. Therefore, no motor vehicle can be fitted with any lights or lighting device other than those specifically provided under the provisions of the CMV Rules. As per the mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 360 of the KMV Rules, the driver of a motor vehicle shall at all times when the lights of the motor vehicle are in use so manipulate them that danger or undue inconvenience is not caused to any person by dazzling. Therefore, use of LED bar W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -53- - - lights, LED flexible strip lights, after market (Non OEM) halogen driving lamps, etc. on a motor vehicle is legally impermissible. 12. In **Saji's case (supra)** this Court held that, the law laid down in **Jijith's case (supra)** is equally applicable in the case of transport vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC and KURTC. While approving the matter intended to be exhibited on a transport vehicle operated by KSRTC or KURTC, in exercise of the powers under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, subject to the conditions, if any, laid down by the State Government under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 191, the competent authority shall ensure that it does not cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles and also cyclists and pedestrians on public road. No approval shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the body of a transport vehicle owned/operated by KSRTC or KURTC, at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules; the reflectors and reflective tapes W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -54- as per Rule 104 of the CMV Rules. Similarly, in view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the CMV Rules and the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Avishek Goenka's case [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** and **Avishek Goenka (2) [(2012) 8 SCC 441]** , tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of transport vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC or KURTC, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible. No approval under Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the safety glasses of such transport vehicles, which shall always be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of - light is not less than that prescribed under sub rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. 13. In **Saji's case (supra)** this Court noticed that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide Circular No.RW/NH-33044/35/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 made it clear that no advertisement hoardings are permitted on National Highways within the Right of Way (ROW) except W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -55- informatory signs of public interest such as hospitals, bus stations, etc. or advertisement of temporary nature announcing local events such as Mela, Flower Show, etc. Besides, IRC:46-1972 titled 'A Policy on Roadside Advertisements' published in 1972 should also be referred for comprehensive guidelines on advertisement control on National Highways. Since transport vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC and KURTC are regularly plying on National Highways, such vehicles shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements which are likely to distract the attention of other drivers. Earning of additional income by KSRTC or KURTC by the display of advertisements on their transport vehicles, under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, should not be at the cost of public safety. Paragraphs 50 to 53 of the said decision read thus; “50. It is pertinent to note at this juncture the provisions under 'Policy on Roadside Advertisements' formulated by the Indian Road Congress, vide IRC:461972. Such a policy was introduced when it was noticed that advertisement can often distract the attention of drivers of motor vehicles and in that case a public hazard or nuisance. They may also obstruct the view of the drivers of fast moving vehicles and are then a public danger. Para.2 of IRC:46-1972 deals with advertisement W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -56- control; Para.3 deals with principles on advertisement control; etc. 51. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide Circular No.RW/NH-33044/35/2001/S&R(R) dated 16.05.2002 has made it clear that no advertisement hoardings are permitted on National Highways within the Right of Way (ROW) except informatory signs of public interest such as hospitals, bus stations, etc. or advertisement of temporary nature announcing local events such as Mela, Flower Show, etc. Besides, IRC:461972 titled 'A Policy on Roadside Advertisements' published in 1972 should also be referred for comprehensive guidelines on advertisement control on National Highways. 52. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its letter No.F.No.RW/NH-33044/18/2016/S&R(R) dated 07.09.2016 noticed that despite the Ministry's policy of not allowing roadside advertisements, hoardings on National Highways which cause distraction and is also one of the cause of accidents on National Highways, advertisement hoardings have generally been noticed along the National Highways. Therefore, it was decided that the Regional Officers/ Engineering Liasoning Officers within their jurisdiction shall inspect the National Highways by prioritising heavily traffic National Highways and other National Highways in stages and submit inspection reports to the Ministry for further necessary action, along with their monthly reports. However, reports from the Regional Officers/Engineering Laisoning W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -57- Officers are not being received by the Ministry and therefore, the Ministry vide letter dated 07.09.2016 directed all the implementing agencies and Regional Officers/Engineering Liasoning Officers to do joint inspection of all National Highways within their jurisdiction and sent a consolidated report regarding advertisement hoardings to the Ministry for further necessary action. A copy of the said letter is addressed to - - all Engineers in Chief and Chief Engineers of Public Works Departments of State/Union Territories dealing with National Highways and other Centrally Sponsored Schemes. 53. Since transport vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC and KURTC are regularly plying on National Highways, such vehicles shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements which are likely to distract the attention of other drivers. Earning of additional income by KSRTC or KURTC by the display of advertisements on their transport vehicles, under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, should not be at the cost of public safety.” 14. In **Saji's case (supra)** this Court directed that the Transport Commissioner shall take necessary steps to ensure that no motor vehicle, including a Government vehicle, is allowed to be used in any public place, after tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -58- ' ' sliding cloth curtains , etc. and that, the safety glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle is always maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70% and that of the safety glass used for side windows is not less than 50%, as per the mandate of subrule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. The Transport Commissioner was also directed to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the provisions under Rules 102 to 111 of the CMV Rules and no motor vehicle shall be allowed to be used in any public place without maintaining the signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. as specified thereunder, in good working condition; since the use of any motor vehicle in a public place without complying with the mandatory requirements of the said rules is likely to endanger the safety of other road users. It was further directed that no motor vehicle shall be permitted to be used in public place putting any object in front of such lighting devices, reflectors, etc. or 'tinting' such lighting devises (i.e., headlights, tail lights, etc.) or reflectors by fixing vinyl tint film sticker; no motor vehicle shall be permitted to be W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -59- used in any public place, which is fitted with any lights or lighting devices other than those specifically provided under the provisions of the CMV Rules; no motor vehicle shall be permitted to be used in a public place which is fitted with LED bar lights, LED flexible strip lights, after-market (Non-OEM) halogen driving lamps, etc.; no transport vehicle, including the vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC and KURTC, shall be permitted to be used in any public place exhibiting advertisements, figures, writings, etc. which are likely to distract the attention of other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians; and exhibition of no such advertisements, figures, writings, etc. shall be permitted on the body of the transport vehicle at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules; the reflectors and reflective tapes as per Rule 104 of the CMV Rules; and also on the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a transport vehicle which has to be maintained as per the standards prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -60- The Transport Commissioner was also directed to take necessary steps to implement the provisions under the MV (Driving) Regulations, 2017 strictly, in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in **S.Rajaseekaran's case [(2018) 13 SCC 532]** . 15. In the instant case, at the time of interception of the petitioner's vehicle on 23.06.2019, the same was being plied exhibiting figures of film stars on the bus body and the vehicle was fitted with music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lights and spot lights, as borne out from Exts.P2 and P3 show-cause notices. The said fact is admitted in the writ petition and in Ext.P5 request dated 02.07.2019, the petitioner has stated that the sound system and laser lamps installed in her contract carriage has already been removed. The stand taken by the 3[rd] respondent in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner obtained fitness certificate for her contract carriage in a fraudulent way by concealing the graphic pictures on the bus body by affixing white sticker. During the fitness test, the petitioner removed the music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lights and spot lights. W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -61- 16. In view of the law laid down by this Court in **Jijith's case (supra)** , the petitioner's contract carriage, which was fitted with music system, amplifier, air horn, laser lights and spot lights, cannot be treated as a vehicle, which complies with the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. In the said decision, this Court held that exhibition of writings or figures on the body of a transport vehicle with an object to invite public attention and to promote contract or stage carriage service of the operator should not be permitted by levying fees under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules. While approving the matter, intended to be exhibited on a transport vehicle, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, the State or the Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that it does not cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles and also the cyclists and pedestrians on public road. 17. In **Saji's case (supra)** , this Court held that the law laid down in **Jijith's case (supra)** is equally applicable in the case of transport vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC and KURTC. In the said decision, taking note of the circular dated W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -62- 16.05.2002 of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and the Policy on Road Side Advertisements – IRC:46-1972, this Court held further that, since transport vehicles owned/ operated by KSRTC and KURTC are regularly plying on National Highways, such vehicles shall not be permitted to exhibit any advertisements, which are likely to distract the attention of other drivers. In the instant case, the petitioner exhibited figures of film stars on the body of her contract carriage, which cannot be permitted in view of the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5, seeking permission to ply her contract carriage without removing the figures of film stars exhibited on the bus body, cannot be directed to be considered by the 3[rd] respondent. 18. The conduct of the petitioner in obtaining renewal of fitness certificate on 15.06.2019 by concealing the graphic pictures on the bus body by affixing white sticker and removing the audio system, air horn, laser lights and spot lights cannot be viewed lightly. For such conduct, appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated against the petitioner, in W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -63- accordance with law. Moreover, for causing/allowing such a vehicle, which do not comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder, to be driven in public place, the driver of the vehicle and also the petitioner, who is its registered owner have to be proceeded against, in accordance with law. 19. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted on the proceedings initiated against the petitioner based on Exts.P2 and P3 show-cause notices. It is for the competent authority to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3, in accordance with law, 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. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** bpr W.P.(C)No.18892 of 2019 -64- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 24.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION LETTER TO EXT.P3 CHECK REPORT DATED 25.06.2019 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 02.07.2019 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**