Vaisakh M. Baby v Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Civil Station, Kannur; Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub-Regional Transport Office, Falcon Plaza NP Road, Irity, Kannur District; Transport Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Union of India

1 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 20200 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` VAISHAKH.M.BABY,S/O BABY, RESIDING AT MANJAPRA, PERAVOOR P.O., MURINGODI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673 BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR BIJOY SAM GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT), CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 2JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, FALCON PLAZA NP ROAD, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670703 3TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 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 SRI.SREEJITH V.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER – R1 TO R4 SRI.S.MANU, DSGI - R5 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **------------------------W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023** **------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Ext.P5 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. By Ext P3 show cause notice the first respondent informed the petitioner that he was proposing to suspend the petitioner’s driving licence invoking Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'Act). Although the petitioner submitted Ext P4 reply, the first respondent passed Ext P5 proceedings suspending the petitioner’s licence under Section 19 (1) (6) of the Act. The Act 3 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 does not empower the Licensing Authority to suspend the driving license. The first 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.P6 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 to challenge Ext.P5 order, in view of the interpretation given in Ext.P5, 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.18138/2023 before this Court and Ext.P7 judgment has been passed. Ext.P5 order is ex- 4 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned 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.P5 order may be quashed. 5. Sri.Sreejith V.S., on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner has deliberately not produced the e-challan 5 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 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 respondents have issued Ext.P3. 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 6 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 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 taking note of the fact that Ext.P5 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 up to 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 7 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of Ext.P5 order. Resultantly, I dispose of the writ petition as follows: (i) The petitioner’s prayer to quash Ext.P5 order is rejected. (ii) The petitioner may file an appeal against Ext.P5 before the Appellate Authority as provided 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. 8 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 (iv) Until such time orders are passed on the proposed appeal, the respondents shall not revoke the license of the petitioner. SD/- sks/21.6.2023 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** 9 W.P.(C.) No.20200 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20200/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE HEAVY DRIVING LICENSE`| ||`NO. KL 58 101442008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE`| ||`OF VEHICLE NO. KL-59W-4739`| |`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED`| ||`06.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| ||`PROPOSING TO SUSPEND THE LICENSE OF`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED`| ||`17.05.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED`| ||`TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT.P3`| ||`NOTICE`| |`Exhibit P5`|`. A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED`| ||`06.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| ||`AGAINST THE PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/24/2022-TC`| ||`DATED 09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.`| ||`(C).NO.18138/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON`| ||`12.06.2023`|