High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions as st...

Sijeesh C. G. v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Civil Station, Ayanttho?le, Thrissur; Regional Transport Officer (Licensing Authority), Civil Station, Ayantho?le, Thrissur; Deputy Transport Commissioner (Central Zone - I), Civil Station, Ayantho?le, Thrissur; State of Kerala; Union of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 16188 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2023-06-12
Court Decision / Holding
(i) The prayer to quash Ext.P3 is rejected. (ii) The first respondent is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P3 after hearing the petitioner and addressing Ext.P4 objection, in accordance with law. (iii) Until Ext.P3 is finalised, the second respondent shall not revoke the petitioner’s driving license.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions as stated: Ext.P3 not quashed; finalise Ext.P3 after hearing; license not revoked until finalisation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sijeesh C. G.

Respondents

  • Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Civil Station, Ayanttho?le, Thrissur
  • Regional Transport Officer (Licensing Authority), Civil Station, Ayanttho?le, Thrissur
  • Deputy Transport Commissioner (Central Zone -I), Civil Station, Ayanttho?le, Thrissur
  • State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department
  • Union of India, represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • G. Hariharan
  • • Praveen H.
  • • K. S. Smitha
  • • V. R. Sanjeev Kumar
  • • Gentle C. D.
  • • Bijoy Sam George

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sunil J., CGC
  • • Sreejith V S, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges Ext.P3 show cause notice issued on 12.04.2023 by the Regional Transport Officers under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, threatening to revoke the petitioner’s heavy driving license for alleged overload. The petitioner contends there is no proven violation of the Act and that the Licensing Authority lacks power to suspend a license; he questions the territorial jurisdiction and the absence of an e-challan in the record, relying on the weighment certificate to prove overload. The respondents contend the driver violated Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, making the licensee's conduct a nuisance or danger to the public, and rely on Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala to justify show-cause proceedings. After examining Ext.P3, the weighment certificate, Ext.P4 objection, and the arguments, the court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in issuing Ext.P3 but states it has not decided the merits. It directs the first respondent to finalize Ext.P3 after hearing and considering Ext.P4, and until then the license shall not be revoked. The court underscores that its review is limited to legality of the notice, not its merits, and references Anoop K.A. for context.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989Section 19(1)(d)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Nuisance or danger to the public includes practices such as overload in a goods carriage vehicle.
  • Power to revoke a license after due hearing under Section 19 read with CMVR 1989 for nuisance or danger to public.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that there is no proven violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the Licensing Authority lacks power to suspend the license. He argues that the respondents acted without territorial jurisdiction and that no e-challan is on record; the weighment certificate alone should not sustain Ext.P3. He seeks quashing of Ext.P3 on grounds of illegality and substantive unfitness to revoke without proper procedure.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the petitioner violated Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) CMVR 1989 by overweighting in a goods vehicle, constituting nuisance or danger to the public. They rely on the weighment certificate and the instrumentality of the show cause procedure to revoke the license after hearing, citing Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala as authority for the procedure and the necessity to enforce compliance under the Act.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala2019 5 KHC 414PositiveThe court relies on the direction in Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala to justify the ongoing show-cause process under Section 19 read with CMVR 1989.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sijeesh C. G. v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Civil Station, Ayanttho?le, Thrissur; Regional Transport Officer (Licensing Authority), Civil Station, Ayantho?le, Thrissur; Deputy Transport Commissioner (Central Zone - I), Civil Station, Ayantho?le, Thrissur; State of Kerala; Union of India and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## `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. 16188 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` 1SIJEESH C. G., AGED 41 YEARS S/O GOPI C. K., CHERUVIL HOUSE, ELAMTHURUTHY, KUTTANELLUR P.O., MARATHAKKARA, PUTHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680014 BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR GENTLE C.D. BIJOY SAM GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT), CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (LICENSING AUTHORITY), CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR,, PIN - 680003 33. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL ZONE -I), CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE P. O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 4STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 5UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 BY ADVS. SUNIL J., CGC SRI SREEJITH V S, 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.16188 of 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C.S.DIAS, J. ``` ------------------------- ``` ## W.P.(C.) No.16188 of 2023 `-------------------------` Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2023 ## JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, interalia, to direct the first respondent to restrain the first respondent from invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (in short ‘Act’) and proceeding with Ext.P3 show cause notice. 2. The petitioner is a driver by profession, having Ext.P1 heavy driving license. On 12.04.2023, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 show cause notice by the first respondent, threatening to revoke his driving license by invoking the power under Section 19(1)(d)(f) of the Act. Immediately, on receipt of Ext.P3 notice, ``` WPC No.16188 of 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 objection to the first respondent stating that he has not committed any offences and the respondents 1 and 2 have no power to suspend the license. Section 19 of the Act does not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend a driving license for violating the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. 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.P5 order has been passed. Ext.P3 show cause notice is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Sreejith ``` WPC No.16188 of 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` V.S., the learned Government Pleader appearing for 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.P3 show cause notice is vitiated and may be quashed. 5. Sri.Sreejith V.S., 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 clearly establishes that the vehicle was overloaded. It was on the strength of the weighment certificate that the ``` WPC No.16188 of 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` respondents have 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. 7. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, and the rival submissions, ``` WPC No.16188 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 of Ext.P3 show cause notice, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless, it will be upto the first respondent to finalise Ext.P3 show cause notice, after adverting to Ext.P4 objection submitted by the petitioner, after affording him an opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Ext.P3 show cause notice. Resultantly, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The petitioner’s prayer to quash Ext.P3 show cause notice is rejected. (ii) The first respondent is directed to to consider and finalise Ext.P3 show cause notice, ``` WPC No.16188 of 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` after adverting to Ext.P4 objection submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iii) Until such time Ext.P3 show cause notice is finalised, the second respondent shall not revoke Ext.P1 driving license of the petitioner. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/12-06 ``` WPC No.16188 of 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16188/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENSE NO. KL08 20030008582 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 03.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RELATING TO VEHICLE NO. KL- 08BZ-1531 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 02.10.2037 EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ON 12.04.2023 EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 17.04.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN W.P. (C) NO.15001/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 02.05.2023 ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL ``` ``` TRUE COPY ``` ``` P.A.TO JUDGE ```