Francis M.C. v. State of Kerala, Regional Transport Officer, and Naufal A.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 19372** ## **WP(C).No. 7045 of 2016 (E)** **--------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------------FRANCIS M.C., AGED 65 YEARS S/O.CHEEKAPPAN, MANJALIL HOUSE, GHANDHI NAGAR UDAYA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, P.O KOCHI.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.** **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** **2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030** **3. NAUFAL.A, MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE ERNAKULAM - 682 030** **R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No. 7045 of 2016 (E)** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** - **P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING REG.NO.KL-7BV 2841.** - **P2 TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE CHECK REPORT BEARING NO:D NO.024523 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL** **---------------------------------------** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **DCS** **“C.R.”** ## **V.CHITAMBARESH,J** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016** ## **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of February, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** It has become the fashion of the day to customize the motor cycles to suit the likes of buyers by removing silencers, mudguard and even sari guard. Such removal in a bid to add glamour to the vehicles often pose danger to the public about which the users are unmindful. 2. The petitioner is the proud owner of a Royal Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle (2012 model) evidenced by Ext.P1 certificate of registration and the registration number of the vehicle is KL-07-BV-2841. The vehicle had a standard handle bar and a catalytic converter as silencer as per the proto type approved under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the 'Rules' for short). However the vehicle was found 'fitted with a silencer that produced harsh heavy shell noise causing sound pollution and the original handle bar was found replaced with a non-standard one' appearing like a pipe. The vehicle was therefore intercepted by the third respondent Motor 2 _**W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016**_ Vehicles Inspector on 18.02.2016 who issued Ext. P2 check report to the petitioner. The certificate of registration was retained by the third respondent and the petitioner was directed to bring back the vehicle after rectifying the defects within three days. The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 check report and also to direct the third respondent to return the original of the certificate of registration withheld. 3. The Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents (who includes the State of Kerala and the Regional Transport Officer) justified the action of the third respondent Motor Vehicles Inspector. It was contended that such unscientific removal of the silencer and replacement of the handle bar made the vehicle prone to accidents. The removal of the silencer and the replacement of the handle bar violated Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short) and Rule 120 of the Rules. It was pointed out that the second respondent can even suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle and that composition of offence 3 ## _**W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016**_ is permissible under the Act. The certificate of registration of the vehicle was withheld only to ensure that the petitioner comes back after curing the defects and that it would be returned later. 4. I heard Mr. B.H. Mansoor, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Sanjeetha K.A. Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 5. Rule 120(1) of the Rules insists that every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a device referred to as a 'silencer' to reduce the noise made by the escape of exhaust gas from the engine. It reads as follows:- “Every motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with a device (hereinafter referred to as a silencer) which by means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as practicable, the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape of exhaust gases from the engine.” Rule 120(2) of the Rules specifies that every motor vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to conform to noise standards specified under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 when tested. The vehicle in the 4 ## _**W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016**_ instant case was found fitted with a silencer that produced harsh heavy shell noise with a thunder effect causing sound pollution. The petitioner therefore stands the risk of being punished with fine for violating the standards prescribed in relation to control of noise and air pollution under Section 190(2) of the Act. It reads as follows:- “Any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place a motor vehicle, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air-pollution, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine of one thousand rupees and for any second or subsequent offence with a fine of two thousand rupees.” The petitioner expressed his willingness to compound the offence as permitted under Section 200 of the Act and his only concern seems to be to retrieve the certificate of registration of the vehicle from the third respondent. 6. Replacing the standard handle bar of the motor bike with a tube like handle bar to add glamour to the vehicle is also a serious step which may perhaps affect the equilibrium of the vehicle even. Such replacement amounts to alteration of the motor vehicle in variance 5 _**W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016**_ with the particulars contained in the certificate of registration and originally specified by the manufacturer. Similar is the case when mudguards are removed to expose the beauty of the naked tyres and the fitment of seats to give the effect of theatre sitting in a slant position not specified by the manufacturer. The alterations prohibited under Section 52 of the Act require to be dealt with seriously and Section 53 of the Act calls for suspension of the certificate of registration of the vehicle. It is reported that a notice under Section 53 of the Act has since been issued to the petitioner as the registered owner of the vehicle who is yet to receive it and the proceedings thereon shall be taken to a logical end. 7. There is however no provision either under the Act or the Rules for the third respondent to retain the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle to ensure the removal of the defects therein. Section 206 of the Act only enables the Police Officer to seize any license held by the driver if there is reason to believe that he is charged with an offence under the Act. No Police Officer has 6 ## _**W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016**_ impounded the document in respect of the vehicle hitherto and the certificate of registration need not be retained by the third respondent. The same shall be returned to the petitioner on his production of the motor vehicle after rectifying the defect noticed in Ext.P2 check report and the payment of fine. 8. The first respondent shall issue appropriate directions to the Inspectors of the Motor Vehicles Department to take stringent actions against the motor vehicles so customised as indicated above. Any variation in terms of Section 52 of the Act like removal of the silencer or mudguard shall be viewed seriously and appropriate action taken under the Act. Thunderous noise emanating from the motor cycles deafens the ears and also poses a serious health hazard especially to the ailing and aged commuters on the road. The sound level has to be brought down to the decibel limits prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 in order to abate the sound pollution. Shorter handle bars which may look slim and sleek cannot be permitted to replace the 7 _**W.P.(C). No.7045 of 2016**_ standard one prescribed lest the very equilibrium of the vehicle is affected. A mudguard less motor cycle will splash dirt not only on the rider but also on the persons nearby and the vehicle cannot be permitted to shed its vital parts in order to enhance its beauty. Theatre seating with a heavy slant not prescribed by the manufacturer with the handle of the pillion rider removed will throw him into the air for the slightest jerk. The removal of the handle of the pillion rider or the sari guard should not be permitted and the standard glare free headlight shall not be permitted to be replaced by a glittering one. The minuteness of the Act and the Rules about the standard fittings in a vehicle is to ensure safety (See: **Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321]** ). It is time that the Motor Vehicles Department as well as the Police open their eyes and bestow their attention to the standardisation of the vehicles so customised. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. **V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE** DCS