Point of Law: Once a notification is issued by State Government further limiting speed, it may have to erect traffic sign boards as contemplated under Section 112 (2) read with Section 116 of Act 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The above appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 17966 of 2022 challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the following reliefs sought for in the writ petition were declined :-

“A. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to erect appropriate sign boards specifying the speed limits applicable in stretch of roads owned and managed by the respondents 1 to 8;

B. To issue appropriate directions and guidelines to the 1st respondent to make it mandatory to install speed limiting mechanisms or such other alerting devices in the vehicles plying in the public road for the proper implementation of directives enshrined in S.112 of the Motor Vehicle Act as provided under Exhibit P5;

C. To call for the records leading to Ext P2 to P3 and such other further communications may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the same.”

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

3. Appellant is the registered owner of a motor car. He is served with Exts. P2 and P3 charge memos by the Inspector of Police, High-Tech Traffic Enforcement Control Room, Thiruvananthapuram, the 9th respondent, for speeding and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. The case of the appellant is that the 9th respondent does not have any jurisdiction or authority to issue the charge memos without erecting sign marks on each and every road stretch, cautioning general public regarding speed limits applicable on the roads managed and maintained by the Union of India, State Government and other statutory authorities. It is also submitted that the 9th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned charge memos since the charge memos can be issued only by the jurisdictional Police or the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules thereto.

4. That apart it is contended that Exts. P2 and P3 charge memos are not accompanied with any electronic record regarding the speed at the point of time when the charge has occurred, and without availability of the said electronic record, no action can be taken against the appellant.

5. The learned Single Judge after taking into account the contentions advanced by the petitioner has dismissed the writ petition holding that imposition of fine for over speeding of vehicles is a summary proceeding, which cannot be challenged in a writ petition, as it involves disputed questions of fact.

6. Basically it is contended that the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge is without assigning any reasons and therefore interference is required to the said judgment. It is also submitted that the issues raised by the appellant have severe ramifications since the action of the 9th respondent by issuing Exts. P2 and P3 has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the appellant.

7. That apart it is contended that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself and dismissed the writ petition since the challenge made in the writ petition was to the jurisdiction of the impugned authority to take cognizance and adjudicate on the over-speeding of the vehicle in question owned by the appellant for the alleged offence.

8. It is also pointed out that when issues were raised in the writ petition attributing interference with rights and liberties of the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the issue taking into account the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant under the Constitution of India.

9. We have heard Sri. Rinu Sreejaya Aswan, the appellant appearing in-person, Sri. S. Manu, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Sri. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and material on record.

10. First of all, we are dealing with the primary issue raised by the appellant with respect to the jurisdiction exercised by the Inspector of Police, High-Tech Traffic Enforcement Control Room, Thiruvana