Important points
The video and photographs of the inspection conducted on 14.08.2018, produced in two compact discs, the 3rd respondent Regional Transport Officer or the prescribed authority shall issue notice requiring the petitioners to remove the unauthorised lights, fittings, figures, writings, etc., referred to hereinbefore, and to display the registration marks, name and address of the operator, etc. as per the relevant provisions under the CMV Rules and the KMV Rules, in order to ensure that their contract carriages comply with the provisions of the MV Act and the rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness- Any violation of the provisions under the MV Act or the rules made thereunder, by the installation of an additional engine on the contract carriage bearing registration No.KL-17/N-7374, allegedly without providing space for adequate cooling, shall also be pointed out in the notice issued to the 3rd petitioner.

The petitioners, who are operating contract carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-45/R-959 (wrongly typed as KL-45/F-959 in the writ petition), KL-44/D-7473 and KL-17/N-7374 respectively, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1 to P3 notices issued by respondents 5 and 6 and seeking a declaration that the issuance of Exts.P1 to P3 notices are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, void, inoperative and unenforceable. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to Exts.P1 to P3 or otherwise forbidding the petitioners from installation or using of facilities of video or audio equipments for passengers in their contract carriages (wrongly stated as tourist buses in the statement of facts and in relief No.iii) bearing registration Nos.KL-45/R-959, KL-44/D-7473 and KL-17/N-7374.

2.1. On 01.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

2.2. On 03.08.2018, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to ensure that an affidavit of the 5th respondent, who has issued Exts.P2 and P3 notices shall be placed on record by 08.08.2018. It was also ordered that the affidavit of the person, who has issued Ext.P1 notice shall also be placed on record by that day.

2.3. On 08.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, it was submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Ext.P1 notice is one issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tripunithura. In such circumstances, the said officer was suo motu impleaded as additional 6th respondent and the matter was ordered to be listed at 1.45 pm for consideration. At 1.45 pm, when the case was taken up for consideration, separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 5th respondent and by the additional 6th respondent, producing therewith the photographs of the contract carriages in question and also its registration particulars. As per the registration particulars, the class of the petitioners' vehicles is 'Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle -Contract Carriage'. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners sought time to file reply affidavit and accordingly, the case was adjourned to 10.08.2018 for further consideration.

2.4. On 10.08.2018, the petitioners have filed reply affidavit. In paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit, the petitioners have stated that, no light, which is illegal has been fitted and if any illegal fittings are pointed out, they shall be removed.

2.5. On 13.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, this Court noticed from Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued by the 5th respondent and Ext.P3 notice issued by the additional 6th respondent that, at the time of inspection, the petitioners' contract carriages were fitted with laser/LED/Neon lights and high-end music systems. The photographs of the contract carriages are also placed on record along with the counter affidavits filed by respondents 5 and 6. During the course of arguments, on a query made by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to produce their contract carriages before the competent authority for inspection. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, if the petitioners are producing their contract carriages before the 3rd respondent Regional Transport Officer, he shall conduct an inspection by constituting a team of officers and thereafter, a report pointing out the statutory violations shall be submitted before this Court. In such circumstances, this Court passed an interim order to the following effect;

“(i) The petitioners shall produce contract carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-45/R-959, KL-44/D-7