Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
Shyamaladevi A.K. - Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam - Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 19975, 19976 & 19977 of 2010; 13408 of 2011; 14921 & 16887 of 2012
Decided On : 29-03-2016
Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 - Rules 2(q), 96(9), 126 & 126A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 52 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 19 - Category N-2" means a motor vehicle used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum mass exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 12 tonnes - Alteration in motor vehicle - Challenging the action of the respective Motor Vehicles Authority refusing to register or renew the fitness certificate etc. etc. on the ground that the vehicles are not fitted with Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) as provided under sub-rule (9) of Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. In the first three writ petitions captioned above and in W.P.(C) No.14921 of 2012, the Constitutional validity of the said rule is under challenge - Held, A gas cylinder filled with LPG is a hazardous goods coming under N2 category - Vehicles which come under N2 category are liable to be filled with Anti-lock Braking System - Rule brought into force by the Central Government to meet with such situations, the rule has to be treated with utmost strictness In order to achieve the purpose for which it was brought - Section 52 of the Act prohibits an owner of a motor vehicle from altering the vehicle so as to change the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration with those originally specified by the manufacturer, which thus means, the owner of a motor vehicle is prohibited by his own act and conduct from altering the vehicle - will not in any manner interferes with S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act - When Rule 96(9) is introduced into the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the same will not in any manner interferes with existing Rules 126 or 126A. Therefore, the direction issued by the Motor Vehicles Authority in compliance with R.96(9) will not in any manner make the said rule violative of Rules 126 and 126A - Petitioners are prohibited only to use vehicles as N2 category and there is no prohibition at all to ply vehicles on road otherwise and in accordance with law - Therefore none of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioners under the Constitution of India is violated. Resultantly it is declared that sub-rule (9) of R.96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is constitutionally valid.
These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the respective Motor Vehicles Authority refusing to register or renew the fitness certificate etc. etc. on the ground that the vehicles are not fitted with Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) as provided under sub-rule (9) of Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. In the first three writ petitions captioned above and in W.P.(C) No.14921 of 2012, the Constitutional validity of the said rule is under challenge. Since the subject matter of the writ petitions are similar in nature, they are disposed of together for convenience. The facts stated in W.P. (C) No.19977 of 2010 are narrated hereunder for disposal of the writ petitions. However, the details of the vehicles are first referred so as to understand the nature of the vehicles in order to arrive at a finding as to whether they are covered under sub-rule (9) of Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, CMV Rules).
2. The vehicle involved is Light Commercial Vehicle (LCV) Goods Carrier Truck-Tata 407. The said vehicle has an unladen weight of 2200 Kg. (2.2 tonnes) and gross weight of 4450 Kg. (4.45 tonnes). Since the vehicle number is not mentioned in the writ petition, I think it is only appropriate that the Engine Number and Chassis Number are mentioned. The Engine No. of the said vehicle is 497SPTC35JQZ629764 and Chassis No. is MAT35710598J27984 and is covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate. The said vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Kottayam.
W.P.(C) No.19976 of 2010
3. The vehicle involved is a LMV Goods Carriage bearing registration No.KL-38 A 2948. The said vehicle has an unladen weight of 2350 Kg. (2.35 tonnes) and a gross weight of 5700 Kg. (5.7 tonnes). The said vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Thodupuzha.
W.P.(C) No.19977 of 2010
4. The vehicle is a Light Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-6E-4787, having an unladen weight of 2300 Kg. (2.3 tonnes) and a gross weight of 5700 Kg. (5.7 tonnes). The said vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Idukki.
W.P.(C) No.14921 of 2012
5. The said vehicle is bearing registration No.KL-08 AS-5674 and is a LMV Goods Carrier Truck, having unladen weight of 2740 Kg. (2.74 tonnes) and gross vehicle weight of 5950 Kg. The said vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Thrissur.
W.P.(C) No.13408 of 2011
6. The vehicle involved is having registration No.KL-08 AT/2601 and a LMV Goods Carriage having unladen weight of 2680 Kg. and gross vehicle weight of 4600 Kg. (4.6 tonnes). The vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Thrissur.
W.P.(C) No.16887 of 2012
7. The vehicle involved is having registration No.KL-08 AS-4879, having unladen weight of 2640 Kg. (2.64 tonnes) and gross vehicle weight of 6140 Kg. (6.14 tonnes).
8. All the aforesaid vehicles are having goods carriage permit and are permitted to carry all kinds of hazardous goods [Gas cylinders only]. The stand taken by the Motor Vehicles Authority is that the aforesaid vehicles are categorised in N2 category of vehicles and therefore after 01.10.2006 if they are meant for carrying hazardous goods and Liquefied Petroleum Gas, the said vehicles shall be fitted with ABS conforming to IS: 11852:2003 [Part-9]. Therefore, when these vehicles were taken to the authorities either for registration or for renewal of the permit, the same was declined, since they were not fitted with Anti-lock Braking System. In some of the writ petitions, the parties have approached this Court and secured direction for registration subject to certain conditions.
9. It is contended by the petitioner that the vehicle was registered temporarily under Sec.43 r/w Rule 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The manufacturer issued a certificate under Form 22A specifying the pollution standards. Thereafter the vehicle was produced for registration before the authority after payment of prescribed fees. But the same was refused to be registered on the ground that the vehicle has not complied with sub-rule 9 of Rule 96 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Thereupon pet
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
