W.A. No. 402/2021
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
## WA.No.402 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2020 IN WP(C) 24112/2020(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
## APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN WP(C):
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR, ANKAMALY, PIN-680 003.
BY SRI. K. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
## RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):
- **1** BINSON
11/507, OLICKAL HOUSE, ASSARIKKAD PO, THRISSUR – 680 751.
- **2** VIJI THOMAS
MANGAN HOUSE, MULAGUNATHUKKAVU PO, THRISSUR- 680 581.
ADV. SRI. P. DEEPAK REPRESENTED BY ADV. JOSEPH.V.GREGORY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. No. 402/2021 :2:
## **Dated this the 26[th ] day of February, 2021. JUDGMENT**
## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.**
The captioned writ appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 16.12.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 24112 of 2020, whereby the learned single Judge held that the appellant/respondent will not be justified in insisting upon the writ petitioners to clear the check reports as a condition precedent for considering their application for transfer of the motor vehicle and accordingly, allowed the writ petition and the appellant was directed to endorse the transfer of ownership of the goods carriage bearing No. KL-45 E-7459 from the name of the first writ petitioner to the name of the second writ petitioner in Ext. P1 certificate of registration, without insisting on clearing any pending check reports. It is thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur has filed the appeal.
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The writ petition was filed challenging Ext. P5 communication issued by the appellant requiring the first writ petitioner/first respondent to clear the pending check reports for consideration of his
W.A. No. 402/2021
:3:
application for cancellation of permit. The first writ petitioner is the registered owner of a heavy goods vehicle specified above and issued with a goods carriage permit, which was valid from 07.08.2015 to 06.08.2020. First petitioner submitted Ext. P3 representation requesting to cancel the permit. But, 7 check reports were pending against the vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. It was thereupon that the Ext. P5 notice was issued to the first petitioner requiring him to pay the penalty imposed for the offence of overloading in the vehicle for considering his application as specified above.
3. Later, the first petitioner filed an application for transfer of ownership from his name to the name of the second petitioner. According to the appellant, since the attempt of the writ petitioners were to defeat the interest of the State, the application was not considered. It was, accordingly, that the writ petition was filed.
4. The learned single Judge, after considering the provisions of law, have arrived at the conclusion that the issue is guided by the judgments of a learned single Judge of this Court in _**Kerala Bus**_
## _**Transport Association and another v. Transport Commissioner**_
[2013 (1) KLT 440] and a Division Bench of this Court in **State of Kerala and another v. C.P. Varghese** [2017 (3) KLT 744], and it is
W.A. No. 402/2021
:4:
held that the pendency of the check report cannot be used to deny the registered owner his right to transfer the vehicle or for sending endorsement of the same in the registration certificate.
5. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant in the appeal is that if the judgment of the learned single Judge is implemented, it would cause serious irreparable financial loss to the State exchequer and it would affect the morale of the Department.
6. It is also contended that in the light of sub-clause (7) of Rule 167 introduced by the Central Government, as per GS(R) 584(E) dated 25.09.2020, if a challan is due beyond the time period specified in sub-Rule (5), except in case of offences instituted for prosecution by a court, then applications with respect to the license of offender or registration of motor vehicle, as the case may be, mentioned in the challan shall not be processed by the licensing authority or registering authority, as the case may be, except applications relating to permit, fitness and taxes of motor vehicle. Therefore, according to the appellant, in the light of the said statutory provision, services to the petitioner can be continued pending check reports and the said statutory provision has not been considered by the learned single Judge and therefore, the judgment is bad in law.
7. We have heard Sri. K. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special
W.A. No. 402/2021
:5:
Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri. P. Deepak for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
8. The sole question emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the judgment of the learned single Judge. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, as provided under Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government has the liberty to prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for transport vehicles by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicles in any area or route and that no person shall drive or cause or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, or the laden weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration.
9. As per Section 114 of the Act, 1988, any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorized in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of section 113, require the driver to convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of ten kilometres etc. and as per sub-Section (2) of Section 114, where the person authorised under sub-section (1) makes the said order in
W.A. No. 402/2021
:6:
writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit.
10. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, it was by virtue of the powers conferred on the State and the Motor Vehicle Authority that the check reports are issued on the owner or the driver of the vehicle violated the permit conditions. Learned Special Government Pleader has also invited our attention to Annexure II notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 25.09.2020 amending the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which has come into force on and with effect from 01.10.2020. As per the amendment in Rule 2, for clause (ca), the following clauses are substituted.
“Challan means a document, in physical or electronic form issued by any police officer in uniform or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, to a person acting in violation of the provisions of the Act, in the form of a receipt comprising the details of the offence committed and the offender, the amount of penalty imposed and mode of collection of the same, if applicable, details of the officer issuing such document and other details as may be specified by the State Government.”
11. The contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader is that in order to implement the amended provision, as per
W.A. No. 402/2021
:7:
Rule 167, a procedure is prescribed for issuance and payment of challan and by which any police officer in uniform or any other officer, authorised by the State Government in that behalf shall issue a challan through system or e-challan facility physical or electronic form, to a person acting in violation of the provisions of the Act and notwithstanding anything contained as above in sub-Rule (1), in case of any person violating the provisions of the Act, the State Government or designated agency can enable auto-generation of challan through electronic monitoring and enforcement system or manually by any police officer or by a designated agency. Other procedures are also prescribed in respect of the issuance of e-challan and the manner in which the proceedings thereafter are to be tackled. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader the insistence made by the appellant to pay the amounts in accordance with the check reports in order to consider the applications submitted by the writ petitioners is in accordance with law.
12. However, after analysing the issue at hand, the learned single Judge was of the considered opinion that there were no proceedings initiated against the registered owner of the vehicle having violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, except making the check reports, and the registered owner has the option either to plead guilty or to contest the proceedings and therefore,
W.A. No. 402/2021
:8:
since the registered owner was not found guilty consequent to the non-payment of fine or having not chosen to compound the offence, the renewal of permit sought for by him would not have been denied by the respondents. It was accordingly that directions were issued by the learned single Judge. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the learned single Judge and therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the same.
13. Having evaluated the rival submissions and the provisions of law as discussed above and otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not made out any case justifying interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, there being no jurisdictional error or legal infirmities.
Needless to say, writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.**
sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.**
_Rv_
W.A. No. 402/2021
:9:
## **APPENDIX**
## APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID LETTER DATED 09.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE FIRST WRIT PETITINER.
ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF GSR 584(E) DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2020 ISSUED BY THE MoRTH.
## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
