Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
Raju Chacko - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. By The Transport Commissioner, Office of The Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram - Respondent
WP(C).No.13563 of 2019
Decided On : 18-06-2019
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989- Rule 92(1)- The Constitution of India- Article 226- A motor vehicle which has not obtained prototype approval under Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. Therefore, no vehicle other than a vehicle which meets the specifications prescribed in sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, i.e., a vehicle which is fitted with a braking system capable of bringing the same to a hold within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, can be permitted to be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'.
Statement of facts:
The petitioner, who is a Government Contractor engaged in the construction field, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 show-cause notice dated 02.05.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha. He has also sought for an order directing the respondents not to seize the vehicle registered as KL-17/T-1615 pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice; and a writ of mandamus compelling the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice, only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the court:
A motor vehicle which has not obtained prototype approval under Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. Therefore, no vehicle other than a vehicle which meets the specifications prescribed in sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, i.e., a vehicle which is fitted with a braking system capable of bringing the same to a hold within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, can be permitted to be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. The petitioner's vehicle covered by Ext.P6 certificate of registration, which is fitted with a Boom Concrete Pump (instead to a tipping body of the specified size) by altering the said vehicle at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification, is a motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and the use of such a vehicle on public place is likely to endanger the safety of other road users.
Result: Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, who is a Government Contractor engaged in the construction field, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 show-cause notice dated 02.05.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha. He has also sought for an order directing the respondents not to seize the vehicle registered as KL-17/T-1615 pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice; and a writ of mandamus compelling the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice, only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
2. On 10.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents, who was directed to get instructions. While listing the matter on 14.05.2019, this Court ordered that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice shall be kept in abeyance till then. The said interim order, which was extended for a period of two weeks on 14.05.2019, expired on 28.05.2019.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. The petitioner, who purchased a Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab, as per sale certificate dated 12.06.2018 issued by M/s.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.34775 of 2018 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 communication dated 10.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, whereby Ext.P3 application made for registration of the said vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get the said vehicle registered as 'construction equipment vehicle'.
6. The vehicle was assigned with the temporary registration 'KL-07-CU-TEMP-5636' by the 3rd respondent Registering Authority at Ernakulam, as per Ext.P2 temporary certificate of registration dated 14.06.2018, which was valid from 13.06.2018 to 12.07.2018. In Ext.P2, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Goods Carrier Truck and type of body as Cabin and Chassis. In paragraph 3 of W.P.(C).No.34775 of 2018, the petitioner contended that, in the temporary registration certificate, a mistake had been crept as to the class of vehicle as the same is described as HGV Goods Vehicle.
7. After purchase, the vehicle covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump by M/s.Putzmeister Concrete Machines Pvt. Ltd. In Ext.P2 certificate dated 20.09.2018 (stated to have been issued in Form 22A) it is certified that the vehicle, which has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump, complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder.
8. On 06.10.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for registration in Form 20, before the 2nd respondent Registering Authority. In Ext.P3 application, the class of vehicle is shown as 'NTV – HMV -Construction Equipment – Platform Pump Boom' after striking off the words 'HGV – Goods Carrier Truck' and the type of body is shown as 'Cabin and Chassis – Platform Pump Boom'. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P4 communication dated 10.10.2018 rejected Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for registration of the vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle, since the class of vehicle as per the sale certificate and Ext.P2 temporary registration is 'Heavy Goods Carrier Truck' (Heavy Goods Vehicle), which is a 'Transport Vehicle'.
9. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 15.01.2019 -Raju Chacko v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KLT 668] -this Court dismissed W.P.(C).No.34
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
