1. The captioned writ petitions are all materially connected in respect of cancellation of trade certificates issued to the petitioners under Rule 35 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [for short, the Rules, 1989], apparently invoking the power conferred on the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) under Rule 44 of Rules, 1989. Therefore, I heard the writ petitions together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

2. The question raised in these writ petitions is that, there is no power vested with the Regional Transport Officer to cancel a trade certificate, otherwise than as provided under Rules 39 to 43 of Rules, 1989. The order passed by the RTO is an appeal able order under Rule 45 of Rules, 1989. Some of the writ petitioners have preferred appeals before the appellate authority. I propose to decide the question raised by the petitioners and then relegate the parties to the appellate authority, since various factual circumstances are involved in the subject issue. At the same time, I find that the RTO has passed the impugned orders after providing sufficient opportunity and hearing the respective parties. Facts discernible from W.P.(C) No.14168 of 2017 are recited for the purpose of disposal of the writ petitions.

3. Petitioner herein is an authorized dealer for 'HONDA' motorcycles and scooters, operating within the jurisdiction of the RTO, Thiruvananthapuram. On 25.03.2017, petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the 1st respondent requiring to show cause why action shall not be taken against him for selling vehicles with incorrect entries regarding the month/year of manufacture, evident from Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 did not specify the source of power invoked nor the nature of the action proposed. On the other hand, it merely referred to a complaint received from one Shibukumar and a letter of the 2nd respondent issued in that regard.

4. On 10.04.2017, petitioner submitted a reply to Ext.P1 notice contending that the error, if any, could have been occasioned on account of the online temporary registration process, which was implemented throughout the State vide Circular No.12 of 2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, and the confusion that prevailed on account of the introduction of the novel process. It was contended that, mistake, if any, in uploading, the vehicle and customer data, was directly attributable to accidental slips and human error. A true copy of the reply is produced and marked as Ext.P2.

5. On 15.04.2017, the authorized representative of the petitioner was called for a personal hearing. It was further pointed out that, as many as 9734, 9673 and 10,667 vehicles were sold during the years, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. In other words, on an average, not fewer than 34 vehicles are registered every working day, and therefore, chances of clerical errors are more real than imagined. However, after hearing the parties, the RTO has passed an order, suspending the trade certificates issued to the petitioner for a period of three months from 17.04.2017, on the ground that as many as 69 vehicles were registered with incorrect particulars regarding the month and year of manufacture, evident from Ext.P3 order.

6. It is submitted by the petitioner that, as per subsection (5) of Sec.55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter called 'the Act, 1988'], such a situation, if proved to be true, warrants cancellation of trade certificate or registration of the vehicle. On the other hand, a trade certificate can be suspended or cancelled under Rule 44 of the Rules, 1989, only if the dealer has not complied with the provisions of Rules 39 to 43 of Rules, 1989. Rules 39 to 43 do not envisage registration of motor vehicles with incorrect particulars, which is a situation expressly dealt with by Sec.55 (5) of the Act, 1988. None of the above rules envisage a post registration situation warranting suspension or cancellation of a trade certificate. These are the background facts projected b