ANZAR v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Karunagappally, Kollam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MAY 2021/14TH VAISAKHA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.10327 OF 2021(M)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ANZAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, KALLAYYATHU HOUSE, THEVALAKKARA, PADINJATTAKKARA, KOLLAM - 690524.** **BY ADV. SHRI.P.DEEPAK** **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER** **SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM – 690518.** **SMT.NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 2 : ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 4[th] day of May, 2021**_ The petitioner states that he is the registered owner of the Goods Carriage vehicle No.KL-40-F-1868. The Certificate of Fitness issued to the vehicle stands expired. The petitioner states that when he attempted to remit the fee for renewal of fitness online through the 'E-vahan' portal he was denied access on the ground that the vehicle is included in the 'blacklisted' category on account of pending check reports. Being aggrieved by the denial of access, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to renew and issue the fitness certificate of his vehicle without insisting on clearing any pending check reports. 2. I have heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 3 : Pleader. 3. Sri. P. Deepak, relying on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in _**Kerala Bus Transport Association and another v. Transport Commissioner** [2013 (1) KLT 440]_ , contended that refusal or renewal of permit or declining the Certificate of Fitness owing to the pendency of a check report is wholly inequitable. The learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 2554 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017, wherein this Court relying on the dictum laid down by this Court in _**State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Varghese** [2017(3) KLT 744]_ , held that the pendency of the check report cannot be used to deny the registered owner his right to transfer the vehicle or in seeking endorsement of the same in the Registration Certificate. 4. The learned Government Pleader while opposing the prayer submitted that vehicles with check reports are blacklisted in the PARIVAHAN application and the concerned RTO will not be in a position to modify the same and make the WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 4 : endorsement. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced. 6. This Court had occasion to consider the question raised by the learned Government Pleader in W.P.(C) No. 18170 of 2020. In the said case, check reports were pending against a stage carriage when the application for renewal of permit came up for consideration. His request was refused on the premise that those vehicles with pending check reports would be blacklisted and the respondents will not be in a position to open the PARIVAHAN software and carry out the request for renewal. The petitioner in the said case took steps to implead the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and also the Director General of NIC to provide clarity as to whether there is any such constraint in the PARIVAHAN software. The Central Government Counsel, after getting instructions from the Deputy Director General, NIC, Kerala State Centre, had filed a statement and on its basis, this Court had observed thus : “8. A statement has been filed based on instructions WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 5 : given by the Deputy Director General, NIC, Kerala State Centre. Para 3 to 5 of the statement is extracted below: “3. As per Vahan software configuration for Kerala, the services of vehicles having pending check reports will be blocked. At present, pending check reports (which are not captured through the newly introduced e-Challan system), can be released by the RTO through the following facilities provided in the Vahan software. i) By paying the fine amount against the check reports at the RTO counter in which the offence is recorded (or) in the RTO where the vehicle is registered. ii) By online payment using the login credentials. The login credentials for online payment can be obtained from the RT office where the offence is recorded or from the office where the vehicle is registered. iii) Else RTO can take decision to release the check report of the vehicle without making payments. 4. The petitioner is having 6 non-paid check reports in Vahan software and the check reports can be released by any of the options available in the Vahan software as given above. 5. By the implementation of e-Challan system in the department, the offender can pay the fine against the offences through the following facilities in the e-Challan system. i) Spot payment using Debit/Credit Card through POS devices installed with the e-Challan software. ii) Online payment through the citizen’s web portal of e- Challan system. iii) Cash payment in RTO counter through the web portal of e- Challan system for RTO officials. WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 6 : iv) The offences not paying through the above three options can be referred to Virtual Court and payment can be made through the virtual court system.”” 7. It is apparent from the statement that there are three options left to the respondent for releasing the check reports. The 3rd option enables the RTO to take a decision to release the check report of the vehicle without making payments. 8. As held by this Court in the precedents cited by the learned counsel, if a check report is pending against the registered owner of the vehicle for having violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the consequence of him being found guilty is imposition of fine. Admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated before any court of law against the registered owner. No provision has been cited before me by the learned Government Pleader which shows that there is any statutory insistence that the check reports are to be cleared before renewing the fitness certificate. Since the registered owner has not been found guilty and as he has not WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 7 : chosen to compound the offence, the renewal of fitness certificate sought by him could not have been denied by the respondent. 9. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent will not be justified in insisting upon the petitioner to clear the check reports as a condition precedent for considering his request for issuance of the fitness certificate. The 3[rd] option provided in the statement of the CGC would enable the RTO to take a decision to release the check report without making payments. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In the result, this writ petition will stand allowed and the respondent is directed to renew and issue the fitness certificate of the vehicle without insisting on clearing any pending check reports. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/10.05.2021 WP(C) No.10327/2021 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION KL - 40-F-1868.** **EXHIBIT P2** **A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OBTAINED FROM THE 'E-VAHAN' PORTAL.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPILLY DATED 16.02.2021.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2020 IN WPC NO.25955 OF 2020.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2021 IN WA NO.402 OF 2021. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL** // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE **rmm**