Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
Saji K.M. - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone -1, Thrissur And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No.7164 of 2019
Decided On : 09-04-2019
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , Section 19 ;; The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989- Rule 21- The satisfaction of the licensing authority of the existence of any of the circumstances made mention in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the MV Act, which is a pre-requisite to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or to revoke such driving licence, is reflected in the orders passed by the licensing authorities in the State in exercise of their powers under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the MV Act.
Statement of facts:
Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 12.12.2018 of the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, Chalakudy, who is the Additional Licensing Authority, whereby his driving licence bearing No.8/5969/1996 stands suspended and he is disqualified from holding that driving licence for a period of three months from 12.12.2018 to 11.03.2019, under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P8 order dated 25.01.2019 of the 1st respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner, Thrissur, who is the Appellate Authority, whereby Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the MV Act, against Ext.P5 order, stands rejected. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner's driving license and release the same without any endorsement or remarks.
Finding of the court:
In order to use the vehicles as contract carriages, the petitioners will have to remove all such graphics, gigantic human figures, writings, etc., exhibited on their vehicles with an object to invite public attention and to promote their contract carriage services, and maintain the paintwork of their transport vehicles in a clean and sound condition, as contemplated by Rule 264 of the KMV Rules-
• Neither Ext.P5 order nor Ext.P8 order reflects application of mind by the Additional Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority as to the existence of any of the circumstances made mention in clauses (a) to (h) of subsection (1) of Section 19 of the MV Act, which is a pre-requisite to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or to revoke such licence under sub-section (1). Ext.P5 order shows a mechanical exercise of power by the Additional Licensing Authority and as such, the same is vitiated by total non-application of mind. Ext.P5 order virtually made the appellate jurisdiction nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order passed in a mechanical exercise of power will be of little assistance to the Appellate Authority while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision.
Result : Writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Exts.P5 and P8 orders
Key Points: - No advertisements, figures, writings, or tinted films are permitted on transport vehicle bodies or safety glass, as this may distract drivers and endanger road users (!) (!) (!) . - Safety glass must maintain visual light transmission of at least 70% for windshields and rear windows, and 50% for side windows, without any black film or material (!) (!) (!) . - The Transport Commissioner must ensure strict compliance with CMV Rules 102–111, prohibit tampering with safety glass, and enforce vehicle standards to protect road users (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner, who is a driver of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity, 'KSRTC'), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 12.12.2018 of the 3rd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, Chalakudy, who is the Additional Licensing Authority, whereby his driving licence bearing No.8/5969/1996 stands suspended and he is disqualified from holding that driving licence for a period of three months from 12.12.2018 to 11.03.2019, under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act') read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the CMV Rules'). The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P8 order dated 25.01.2019 of the 1st respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner, Thrissur, who is the Appellate Authority, whereby Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the MV Act, against Ext.P5 order, stands rejected. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner's driving license and release the same without any endorsement or remarks.
2. On 11.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.
3. On 18.3.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, after perusing Ext.P9 photograph this Court suo motu impleaded KSRTC, represented by its Managing Director as additional 4th respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this writ petition to Sri.P.C.Chacko, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC.
4. On 19.3.2019, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, sought adjournment to address arguments on the statutory requirement under the CMV Rules regarding fitment of reflectors/reflective tapes on transport vehicles.
5. On 26.03.2019, additional 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. On 26.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought time to get instructions as to whether for exhibition of advertisement on the vehicles owned by KSRTC, the State Government has laid down any conditions, under the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the KMV Rules').
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for additional 4th respondent KSRTC.
7. According to the petitioner, on 28.11.2018, at about 10.00 pm, while he was driving KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KL-15/A-1491 of Thrissur Depot, through National Highway544 (old No. NH-47), the diesel pump of the vehicle failed and he had to stop the vehicle on the side of National Highway, near Panampilly Nagar, Chalakudy. After parking the vehicle on the extreme left side, the petitioner switched on the hazard lights, parking lights, passenger compartment lights and also the light for destination board. While the passengers were getting down, the petitioner heard a loud noise from the back side of the vehicle. On getting down, the petitioner saw a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-08/BB-6733 and the rider of that motor cycle lying on the road. The injured rider was taken to the hospital, who was declared dead by the doctor. The petitioner would contend that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. Based on the First Information Statement recorded on 29.11.2018 at 7.33 am, Ext.P2 FIR in Crime No.776 of 2018 of Chalakkudy Police Station, alleging offences under Section 283 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy. After investigation, the Police filed Ext.P3 final report dated 22.12.20
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
