Ma'din Public School, Swalath Nagar, Melmuri, Malappuram District v Regional Transport Office, Malappuram and Transport Commissioner, Kerala

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT # THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 29TH POUSHA, 1944 ## WA NO. 1201 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20711/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23.1.2019 ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: M/S.MA DIN PUBLIC SCHOOL SWALATH NAGAR, MELMURI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SAIDALAVI KOYA. BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR ## RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: - 1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM-678505 - 2 TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, KERALA, 2ND FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCADU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. ADV.P SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL. G.P. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 2 :: ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 19[th] day of January 2023 ## S.MANIKUMAR, C.J. M/S Ma'din Public School at Melmuri in Malappuram District, a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, represented by its Principal Shri.Saidalavi Koya, is the appellant in this writ appeal. Instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20711 of 2018, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.01.2019, whereby the following relief sought for by the appellant/writ petitioner was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. - “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent to effect reclassification of vehicle No.KL-07/AD-708 as Educational Institution Bus without any further delay on the strength of Exhibit P4 proceedings.” 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under: The appellant/writ petitioner has purchased a 2001 model Tata 407 bus with a seating capacity of 20 seats in all with registration No.KL-07/AD-708 to be used for the W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 3 :: transportation of students of the institution on 27.06.2016. Pursuant to the issuance of Exhibit P1 document and other relevant papers, the ownership of vehicle No.KL-07/AD-708 was effected by the 1[st] respondent – Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram with effect from 27.06.2016. After effecting transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of the appellant/writ petitioner, an application dated 27.06.2016 was submitted before the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram - 1[st] respondent for reclassifying the vehicle mentioned above as an educational institution bus. On receipt of Exhibit P3 application from the petitioner the 1[st] respondent had accorded sanction for reclassifying the vehicle as an educational institution bus vide proceedings dated 11.07.2016 and required the petitioner to produce the vehicle before the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram after making the required alteration. As a precondition for reclassification of the vehicle as an educational institution bus, the appellant/writ petitioner was compelled to pay a compounding fee of Rs.3000/- on 01.07.2016 apart from the required fees of Rs.150/- for W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 4 :: altering the class of the vehicle. However, even after a lapse of more than nearly two years from the date of Exhibit P4 proceedings, the reclassification of the vehicle as educational institution bus was not done so far by the 1[st] respondent, as a result of which, the appellant/writ petitioner is compelled to run the vehicle on payment of tax applicable to contract carriage vehicle. Hence the writ petition is filed. 3. The Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram (respondent No.1) has filed a counter affidavit dated 09.01.2019, refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads thus: “3. It is submitted that, the petitioner is the owner of the Light Motor Vehicle Contract Carriage bearing NO. KL-07AD-708. The petitioner submitted an application for transfer of ownership and class alteration as Educational Institutional Bus on 27.06.2016. The petitioner produced Form 29 and 30 Registration Certificate and request for alteration of class of vehicle. As per Exhibit P4 proceedings, sanction was accorded for the alteration of vehicle KL-07AD 708 and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle before the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector Malappuram for inspection after making necessary W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 5 :: alteration along with the records of the vehicle. But, the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle before the Inspecting Officer within the prescribed time limit. So without inspecting the vehicle, no alteration can be effected. 4. It is respectfully submitted that, the Petitioner has alleged in the Writ Petition that even after lapse of more than nearly 2 years from the date of Exhibit P4 proceedings, the reclassification on the vehicle as Educational Institution Bus has not been allowed so far by this respondent and as a result the petitioner is compelled to run the vehicle as Contract Carriage vehicle. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the above said Statement of the petitioner is absolutely false and baseless. It is a fact that, as per Exhibit P4 proceedings, sanction was accorded for alteration of the vehicle, but the petitioner has not produced the vehicle for inspection till date. Infact, this Honourable Court had directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle before this respondent for inspection as allowed in Exhibit P4 proceedings. But, even then, the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle as the vehicle is not in a condition to operate. 6. It is respectfully submitted that, this Honourable Court, as per Interim Order dated 19 12 2018, directed this respondent to conduct an inspection of the vehicle and to file a report before this Honourable Court. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Circle Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry about the matter and to report the present condition of the vehicle. Pursuant to that, the Circle Officer has conducted an enquiry and reported that the vehicle was found detained at Alathoorpadi near to the premises of the Ma’din W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 6 :: Public School since 9/2016 and at present vehicle in question is in a dilapidated condition. The Inspector has also reported that the Principal of Ma'din Public School intent to scrap the vehicle and to dispose the same for which an application has been submitted in the office of this respondent. 7. It is submitted that the inspection report reveals that the vehicle in question is in a dilapidated condition and it cannot be used either as a Contract Carriage or as an Educational Institution Bus. So. the only course available to the petitioner is to dismantle the vehicle with the permission of this respondent after clearing all dues to the State as sought for in Exhibit R1(b). 8. It is also submitted that, Exhibit P4 is only an order to make necessary alteration to reclassify the vehicle as Educational Institution Bus. The said application can be allowed only after proper inspection and find that the vehicle is suitable for conducting operation as Educational Institution Bus. Since the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle for inspection, no order is passed to reclassify the vehicle as Educational Institution Bus. Moreover, now the latest inspection report also reveals that the vehicle is lying in the premises of Ma'din Public School since September, 2016 onwards in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, there is no merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner and therefore, no reliefs can be granted.” 4. After considering the pleadings and material on record, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 7 :: ## by holding thus: “41. The attempt made by the petitioner, which is a school affiliated to CBSE, by filing this writ petition supported by an affidavit sworn to by its Principal, to secure orders from this Court for reclassification of the vehicle covered by Ext.P2 certificate of registration as Educational Institution Bus, suppressing the fact that the said vehicle is lying idle since 01.09.2016, as it is not roadworthy, and that the fitness certificate of the said vehicle had expired on 03.06.2016, has to be viewed seriously. By suppressing those material facts, it has falsely been stated in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that, even after the lapse of more than two years from the date of Ext.P4 proceedings, the reclassification of the vehicle as Educational Institution Bus has not been done by the 1[st] respondent, as a result of which, the petitioner is compelled to run the vehicle on payment of tax applicable to Contract Carriage. The attempt made by the petitioner was to use the said vehicle, which was discarded to road use as a contract carriage, as an Educational Institution Bus, showing scant regard to the safety of the children (which should be the prime concern of a school, while providing transportation facility to its children) in flagrant violation of Circular No.08/2017 dated 23.02.2017 of CBSE, a copy of which was marked to all Principals and Managers of the schools affiliated to CBSE, for information and compliance, along with the Director of Secondary Education of all States, etc. 42. A litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and clean objects. Any attempt made by a litigant to W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 8 :: mislead this Court, either by suppressing materials facts or by filing false affidavits or giving false statements should be curbed with an iron hand. Dismissal of such writ petitions imposing exemplary costs is inevitable, and even necessary, in order to prevent abuse of the process of this Court and to preserve the purity of judicial proceedings. 43. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund, to provide relief to flood victims in Kerala. The petitioner shall remit the said amount in the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Failing which, the State Government shall recover the said amount by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner. 44. The remittance/recovery of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as cost by/from the petitioner shall be brought to the notice of this Court by way of a memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader. 45. The Transport Commissioner, who is suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent, shall take necessary steps to ensure that no application for altering the class of a stage carriage or a contract carriage as Educational Institution Bus shall be entertained by any Registering Authority in the State, without the vehicle being produced for inspection, along with its current records, and after satisfying that such request is in respect of a vehicle which is roadworthy. The application for altering the class of vehicle shall contain the particulars of the alterations proposed, and the Registering Authority shall consider that request, strictly in accordance W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 9 :: with the provisions under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K.Jayachandra [2019 (1) KLT 435 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 31] and that laid down by this Court in Raju Chacko v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KHC SN 32 : 2019 (1) KLT 668] . Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to (i) The Principal Secretary, Transport, Government of Kerala, Main Block, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001; (ii) The Director of Public Instruction, Directorate of Public Instruction, Jagathi, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014; and The Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education, Block-B, W.P.(C)No.20711 of 2018 42 2nd Floor, LIC Divisional Office Campus, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004 for information and necessary action to ensure the safety of children in the transportation facility provided in every school in the State.” Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. It is evident from the inspection report that the vehicle in question is in a dilapidated condition and it cannot be used either as a Contract Carriage or as an Educational Institution Bus. Perusal of the latest inspection report also shows that the vehicle is lying in the premises of W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 10 :: Ma'din Public School since September, 2016 onwards in a dilapidated condition. Moreover, the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle for inspection and hence no order was passed to reclassify the vehicle as Educational Institution Bus. 7. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that there is suppression of material facts on the part of the appellant. Learned single Judge has rightly observed that the attempt made by the appellant/writ petitioner, which is a school affiliated to CBSE, by filing these cases supported by an affidavit sworn to by its Principal, to secure orders from this Court for reclassification of the vehicle covered by Ext.P2 certificate of registration as Educational Institution Bus, suppressing the fact that the said vehicle is lying idle since 01.09.2016, as it is not roadworthy, and that the fitness certificate of the said vehicle had expired on 03.06.2016, has to be viewed seriously. 8. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the findings entered by the learned single Judge. Appellant shall remit W.A.No.1201/2019 :: 11 :: the cost as directed by the learned single Judge without any further delay. Appeal fails and it is dismissed. SD/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes