Back
2022 Supreme(Bom) 1723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Kiran S/o. Ashok Gaikwad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Transport Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9819 of 2022
Decided On : 15-11-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.R. Karpe.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.G. Sangle, AGP.
Blacklisting of a vehicle does not require a personal hearing before entry in the list, and the owner must be given an opportunity to furnish an explanation as per Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Blacklisting - Motor Vehicle - Sections 188, 272, 273, 328 of IPC, Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(iv), 27(2)(e) of Food Safety and Drugs Act, 2006 - Section 19(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Rule 139 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Rule 139A - Section 86 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was blacklisted without a hearing after an offence was registered against it. The petitioner argued that the blacklisting violated principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that blacklisting of a vehicle is to maintain a list of vehicles involved in offences and permit violations, and it does not require a personal hearing before blacklisting. The court directed the petitioner to appear for a hearing before the Transport Authority.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, legality of blacklisting without a hearing, suspension of permit without a hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that blacklisting does not require a personal hearing before entry in the list. The petitioner was directed to appear for a hearing before the Transport Authority as per Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed off with directions for the petitioner to appear for a hearing before the Transport Authority.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B, C, D and E as under :-
"B. Hold and declare that, the action of blacklisting the vehicle i.e. Eicher bearing registration No. Mh-12-RN-6106 owned by the present petitioner and suspension of transportation registration including license of the present petitioner of said vehicle at the hands of respondent No.5 and 3 respectively i.e. Food Safety Officer and Road Transport Authority are bad, illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions.
C. Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the like nature, thereby kindly direct the respondent authorities i.e. respondent No.5 and 3 respectively i.e. Food Safety Officer and Road Transport Authority to forthwith revoke the impression of blacklisting of vehicle of the present petitioner by consequentially restoring transportation registration including license of the present petitioner of said vehicle.
D. Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the like nature, thereby kindly direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the request application of the present petitioner dated 15.12.2021 (Exhibit-F) within stipulated period by revoking the impression of blacklisting of vehicle of the present petitioner by consequentially restoring transportation registration including license of the present petitioner of said vehicle.
E. Issue appropriate writ or any other writ or direction in the like nature, the appropriate compensation may be awarded in favour of the present petitioner on the count of such illegal acts/action resulted into heavy loss to the present petitioner being owner of the vehicle from the respondent No.5 and 3 respectively i.e. Food Safety Officer and Road Transport Authority."
3. The petitioner is the owner of a heavy motor vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-12-RN-6106. The brand name of the vehicle is Eicher. On 21.01.2021, an FIR bearing Crime No.0050/2021 was registered with respondent No.6, Umerga Police Station for offences punishable u/sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 of the IPC alongwith Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2) (iv) and 27(2)(e) of the Food Safety and Drugs Act, 2006. The driver of the vehicle is not the owner It is not the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was stolen or that the driver was unauthorizedly plying the vehicle.
4. After the registering of the offence, respondent No.5 intimated the Road Transport Authority at Pune (respondent No.3), and based on the registration of an offence, the vehicle was enlisted in a list of vehicles separately maintained for vehicles against whom an offence has been registered and which is commonly termed as a “blacklist”. The grievance of the petitioner is that the blacklisting of his vehicle has been done without granting an opportunity of hearing to him. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that after the offence was registered and the vehicle was blacklisted, no further hearing has taken place and in the absence of any further proceedings, the petitioner is unable to utilize the vehicle for his business. The vehicle has been released under the orders of the learned J.M.F.C. on an application filed by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner relies upon a circular dated 12.09.2018, as well as the guidelines dated 06.04.2017, which were relied upon by respondent No.5. It is canvassed that under clause I of the Circular, Section 19(1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is referred to and the said clause can be invoked if there is a transportation of contraband articles. According to the petitioner, the said provision contemplates an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party. It is, therefore, submitted that the principles of natures justice have been violated and the vehicle could not have been blacklisted without an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. The learned AGP, by placing reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Divi
