Anil Kumar K.S v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Civil Station, Ayyanthol, Thrissur District; Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub-Regional Transport Office, Cheriyamoozhiyil Building, Pulimukku, Angadi P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta; 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` ``` TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 17532 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` 1ANIL KUMAR K.S, AGED 49 YEARS S/O T.N. SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT KAKKATTU HOUSE, MADAMON P.O., VADASSERIKKARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689711 BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR BIJOY SAM GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` |`1`|`REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),`| |---|---| ||`CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,`| ||`THRISSUR DISTRICT ., PIN - 680003`| |`2`|`JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,`| ||`SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,`| ||`CHERIYAMOOZHIYIL BUILDING,`| ||`PULIMUKKU, ANGADI PO, RANNI,`| ||`PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689674`| |`3`|`TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,`| ||`TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014., PIN - 695014`| |`4`|`STATE OF KERALA,`| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001., PIN - 695001`| |`5`|`UNION OF INDIA,`| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,`| ||`SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001`| ||`BY ADVS.`| ||`SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER`| ||`S.KRISHNA`| ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C.S.DIAS, J. ``` ------------------------- ``` ## W.P.(C.) No.17532 of 2023 `-------------------------` Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2023 ## JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 proceedings passed by the first respondent invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘Act’). 2. The petitioner’s case is that, he is a driver by profession holding Ext.P1 heavy driving license. The petitioner was served with Ext.P3 proceedings suspending Ext.P1 license. Ext.P3 has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Section 19 of the Act does not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend the driving license. The first respondent does not have the power to invoke the provisions of Sections 113 ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** and 114 of the Act. Perhaps, the first respondent acting on Ext.P4 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 proceedings, in view of the interpretation given in Ext.P4, 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. Ext.P3 proceedings are ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law, especially because the petitioner has not even been served with a show cause notice. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sreejith V.S., the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.Manu S., 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. Moreover, the petitioner was not given a show cause notice or afforded an opportunity of being heard. Hence, Ext.P3 proceedings may be quashed. 5. Sri.Sreejith V.S., on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner has deliberately not produced the e-challan that was issued by ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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 overloaded. It was on the strength of the weighment certificate that the respondents have issued Ext.P3 proceedings. Ext.P3 proceedings was passed after issuing a show cause notice, which is clearly mentioned as reference number two in Ext.P3. 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 ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` empowers the Licensing Authority, after giving the holder of a 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 states that nuisance or danger to public, includes carrying overload in a goods carriage vehicle. 8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, and the rival submissions, particularly after perusing the e-challan, the weighment certificate and Ext.P3 proceedings, this Court has no doubt in its mind that there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the first respondent in issuing Ext.P3 proceedings, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An order passed under Section 19(1) of the Act is ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` appealable under Section 19(3) of the Act within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Resultantly, I order the writ petition as follows: (i) The petitioner’s prayer to quash Ext.P3 proceedings is rejected. (ii) The petitioner may, if so advised, prefer an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (iii) If the petitioner prefers an appeal as directed above, the Appellate Authority shall accept the appeal on file, treating it to be filed within the prescribed time period, consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, after affording the ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iv) Until such time orders are passed on the appeal, if it is filed within the above prescribed time period, the respondents are restrained from revoking Ext.P1 license of the petitioner. Sd/C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/27-06 ``` WPC No.17532 of 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17532/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENCE NO.KL 03 19990000803 ISSUED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY SRTO, RANNY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-04AS-9699 EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER 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 CASE DETAILS RELATING TO ST.NO.106/2022 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM FOR OFFENCES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED OFFENCES U/S 113 (3)(B) R/W SECTION 194(1) OF THE MV ACT EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.05.2023 MADE IN W.P.(C).NO.15001/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL ``` ## `TRUE COPY` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ```