High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-06-12Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P4 order not qua...

Thomas C.A. v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), BSNL Telephone Exchange, Chandranagar Colony Extension, Koottupatha, Palakkad; Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Civil Station, Kuyilimala, Painavu, IDUKKI; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Union of India

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.18138 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-06-12
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of: (i) The prayer to quash Ext.P4 is rejected. (ii) The petitioner may file an appeal against Ext.P3 before the Appellate Authority under Section 19(3) within thirty days from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. (iii) If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide, after hearing, expeditiously, within one month from receipt of the certified copy. (iv) Until such orders are passed on the appeal, the respondents shall not revoke the petitioner’s license.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P4 order not quashed; respondent license actions to be governed by the appeal under Section 19(3); stay on revocation pending appeal

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thomas C.A.

Respondents

Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), BSNL Telephone Exchange, Chandranagar Colony Extension, Koottupatha, Palakkad
Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Civil Station, Kuyilimala, Painavu, IDUKKI
Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Union of India represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Sansad Marg, New Delhi
Sri Sreejith V.S., Government Pleader

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. Hariharan
• Praveen H.
• K.S. Smitha
• V.R. SANGEeV KUMAR
• BIJOY SAM GEORGE

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Sreejith V.S., Government Pleader
• Deputy Solicitor General of India (for 5th respondent)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Thomas C.A., a driver holding a heavy driving license, challenges Ext.P4, a Transport Commissioner order suspending his license following a vehicle overload stop on 8 October 2022. The petitioner contends that Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers revocation after due hearing, not suspension by the licensing authority, and that the licensing authority lacks power to invoke Sections 113 and 114 of the MV Act. He argues Ext.P4 is illegal and unsustainable in law. He also asserts the existence of a statutory remedy; though the weighment certificate indicates overload, he maintains that the documentary evidence is insufficient to sustain suspension and objects to the lack of an e-challan. The petitioner’s counsel cites Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala to support the need to adhere to statutory remedies and argues that enforcing officers often act beyond territorial jurisdiction, creating remedial gaps for drivers. The respondents contend the weighment certificate proves overload and that the proceedings were properly initiated under Section 19 and Rule 21(8) CMVR 1989. The Court, after hearing, declines to quash Ext.P4 but recognizes the available remedy under Section 19(3) and permits an appeal within 30 days, with directions for expeditious disposal by the Appellate Authority and a stay on license revocation pending the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 19Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 19(3)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 57Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 21(8)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 113(3)(B) read with Section 194(1) MV Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Nuisance or danger to public includes overload (Rule 21(8), CMVR 1989)
Availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 19(3) before invoking writ jurisdiction
License revocation after hearing under Section 19(1) (implied)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Ext.P4 suspending the license is beyond the Licensing Authority’s power since Section 19 of the MV Act contemplates revocation after due hearing, not suspension. He contended the Licensing Authority could not invoke Sections 113 and 114 and that Ext.P4 is illegal and unsustainable. While the weighment certificate allegedly proves overload, counsel argued that no coercive action should be taken without proper process, and emphasized the statutory appeal under Section 57 and primarily under Section 19(3) as a remedy; and that enforcement officers often act without territorial jurisdiction, leaving drivers remediless. He relied on the court’s direction in Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala for adhering to statutory remedies.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that overload was evidenced by the weighment certificate and that Ext.P3 was issued following due process under Section 19 read with Rule 21(8) CMVR 1989. They submitted Ext.P3 is an appealable order under Section 19(3), and that the petition should not be entertained to avoid pre-empting the statutory remedy. They maintained that the Court should not quash Ext.P4, as there exists a valid basis to revoke/ suspend licenses under the MV Act and CMVR, pending appellate review.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala	2019 (5) KHC 414	Mentioned Only	Cited as a direction or persuasive authority regarding statutory remedies under MV Act and appeals under Section 19(3).

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 Thomas C.A. v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), BSNL Telephone Exchange, Chandranagar Colony Extension, Koottupatha, Palakkad; Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Civil Station, Kuyilimala, Painavu, IDUKKI; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; 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. 18138 OF 2023` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` 1THOMAS.C.A., AGED 45 YEARS S/O AUGUSTIAN, RESIDING AT CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MUNIYARA.P.O., KONNATHADI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685571 BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR BIJOY SAM GEORGE ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` |`1`|`REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),`| |---|---| ||`BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, CHANDRANAGAR COLONY EXTENSION,`| ||`KOOTTUPATHA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678007`| |`2`|`REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER`| ||`REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,`| ||`KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603`| |`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, PIN - 110001`| ||`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.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## C.S.DIAS, J. ``` ------------------------- ``` ## W.P.(C.) No.18138 of 2023 `-------------------------` Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2023 ## JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, interalia, to quash Ext.P4 order issued by the first respondent suspending the driving license of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner’s case is that, he is a driver by profession holding Ext.P1 heavy driving license. On 08.10.2022, the first respondent intercepted the vehicle that was driven by the petitioner on the allegation that the vehicle was overloaded. The first respondent suspended the driving license of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 order. Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'Act) does not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend the driving license. The first ``` WPC No.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` respondent does not have the power to invoke the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Act. Perhaps, the first respondent acting on Ext.P4 order passed by the Transport Commissioner has carried out the acts. Though the petitioner has a right to file a statutory appeal under Section 57 of the Act challenging Ext.P4 order, in view of the interpretation given in Ext.P4, no useful purpose will be served in filing the appeal. 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 W.P.(C.) No.15001/2023 before this Court and Ext.P6 order has been passed. Ext.P4 order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned ``` WPC No.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sreejith 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.P4 order 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 ``` WPC No.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` strength of the weighment certificate that the respondents have issued Ext.P3 order. 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 ``` WPC No.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` materials on record and taking note of the fact that Ext.P3 is an appealable order under Section 19(3) of the Act, I am of the definite view that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Nonetheless, it will be upto the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies. But, I permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if so advised, before the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Ext.P3 order. Resultantly, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The petitioner’s prayer to quash Ext.P4 order is rejected. (ii) The petitioner may file an appeal against Ext.P3 before the Appellate Authority as provided ``` WPC No.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` under Section 19(3) of the Act, if so advised, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (iii) If such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (iv) Until such time orders are passed on the proposed appeal, the respondents shall not revoke the license of the petitioner. Sd/- C. S. DIAS JUDGE SKP/15-06 ``` WPC No.18138 of 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18138/2023` ``` PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENSE NO.KL4419970001171 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-04AN-501 EXHIBIT 3A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUSPENDING EXHIBIT.P1 LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER FOR 2 MONTHS EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/24/2022-TC DATED 09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5A 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 P6A 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 ```