Jerin O.P. v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub-Regional Transport Office, Mini Civil Station, Cherthala; Regional Transport Officer (Licensing Authority), Civil Station, Ayyanthole; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Union of India

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 17233 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` 1JERIN O.P, AGED 29 YEARS S/O PAULOSE, RESIDING AT OOZHATH HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., PANANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680652 BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR BIJOY SAM GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` |`1`|`JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,`| |---|---| ||`SUB-REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,`| ||`MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA PO, PIN - 688524`| |`2`|`REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (LICENSING AUTHORITY),`| ||`CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,`| ||`THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003`| |`3`|`TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER`| ||`TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014`| |`4`|`STATE OF KERALA`| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,`| ||`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`| |`5`|`UNION OF INDIA`| ||`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`| ||`MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY,`| ||`SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001, PIN - 110001`| ||`BY ADV.SMT PARVATHY K, GOVERNMENT PLEADER`| ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C.S.DIAS, J. ``` ------------------------- ``` ## W.P.(C.) No.17233 of 2023 `-------------------------` Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2023 ## JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, interalia, to quash Ext.P2 communication issued by the first respondent requiring him to appear before the Adalath on 24.05.2023 and why action should not be taken against him under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'Act). 2. The petitioner is a driver by profession holding Ext.P1 heavy driving license. On 24.05.2023, the petitioner received Ext.P2 communication from the first respondent, requiring him to appear before the Adalath and to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The first respondent has also issued Ext.P3 intimation to the petitioner informing him ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` that his driving license has been suspended for a period of three months. The first respondent has not mentioned any provisions in Ext.P2 notice. The petitioner assumes that the notice has been issued under Section 19(1)(d)(f) of the Act. The respondents 1 to 3 have no power to suspend the license of the petitioner. Recently, it has become a practice of the Enforcing Officers to assert the powers of the Original Licensing Authority, without territorial jurisdiction, leaving the hapless drivers remediless. In an identical situation, persons similarly situated to the petitioner had filed writ petitions before this Court and Ext.P6 order has been passed. Ext.P2 communication is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Parvathy Kottol, the learned Government Pleader appearing for ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 4. Sri.G.Hariharan, argued that there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, by carrying overload in the vehicle that he was driving, as alleged by the respondents. Therefore, Ext.P2 communication is vitiated and may be quashed. 5. Smt.Parvathy Kottol, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner has deliberately not produced the e-challan that was issued by the respondents at the time of carrying out the inspection of the vehicle. It was the petitioner who handed over the weighment certificate, which establishes that the vehicle was clearly overloaded. It was on the strength of the weighment certificate that the respondents have ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` issued Ext.P3 show cause notice. The proceedings have been initiated to revoke licenses of those drivers who violate Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in the light of the direction passed by this Court in Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala [2019 5 KHC 414] . Hence, the writ petition is to be rejected at the threshold. 6. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Licensing Authority, after giving holder of the license an opportunity of being heard, to revoke the license, if the license holder has caused nuisance or danger to public. 7. Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, unambiguously lays down that nuisance or danger to public includes carrying overload in a goods carriage vehicle. 8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, and the rival submissions, ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` particularly after perusing the e-challan and weighment certificate, 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.P2 communication, directing the petitioner to appear before the Adalath. As the time period in Ext.P2 has already elapsed, it will be upto the first respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and permit him to submit his reply and thereafter, finalise the show cause notice. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Ext.P2 communication. Resultanty, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The petitioner’s prayer to quash Ext.P2 communication is rejected. (ii) The first respondent may show cause to the petitioner, if so advised, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` (iii) If the first respondent issues such a show cause notice, the petitioner shall reply to the show cause notice within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of show cause notice. (iv) On the receipt of the reply from the petitioner, the first respondent shall finalise the show cause notice and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the reply, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/15-06 ``` WPC No.17233 of 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17233/2023` |`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:`|| |---|---| |`EXHIBIT P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENSE NO.KL-`| ||`08 20140012193 ISSUED BY THE LICENSING`| ||`AUTHORITY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR`| ||`ON 22.09.2014 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`EXHIBIT P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 24.05.2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/24/2022-TC DATED`| ||`09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`| |`EXHIBIT P5`|`A 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 P6`|`A 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 ```