SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
M/s. George & Sons, Represented By Managing Partnerm K. Muhammed, S/o. Kochumoideen and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.23146 and 28289 of 2022
Decided On : 10-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: D. Kishore, Lakshmi Ramadas, Meera Gopinath, P. Ravindran (SR.)
For the Respondents: Smt. Mini Gopinath, CGC, Sri. K.S. Prenjith Kumar, Sri. K.M. Faizal, Government Pleader.

Authorities cannot penalize vehicle owners for maintaining Safety Glazing that conforms to VLT requirements as per amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules, reflecting lawful compliance.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 52 and 182A(4) - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 100 - Legality of penalties imposed on vehicle owners for maintaining 'Safety Glazing' within specified Visual Light Transmission (VLT) limits. - Court discusses that the authority does not have power to penalize compliance with amended standards allowing Safety Glazing conforming to IS 2553 (Part 2) (First Revision): 2019 (Paras 1, 33).

(B) Interpretation of Law - The Court emphasizes that penalties cannot be imposed if materials used conform to statutory standards and definitions outlined in CMV Rules (Paras 32, 33).

(C) Application of Safety Standards - The petitioners argue against penalties for using compliant glazing materials when legal modifications allow such practices under the amendment to the rules (Paras 21, 23).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, including a partnership firm and individual motor vehicle owners, challenged penalties for alleged non-compliance with VLT requirements using Safety Glazing, which conformed to applicable regulations. The State's authority was contested when fines were levied despite adherence to the standards provided in the CMV Rules (Paras 2, 3).

Findings of Court:
The Court found that penalties imposed for employing Safety Glazing conforming to prescribed standards are not legally justified (Para 34).

Issues: Chief question revolved around whether State authorities can penalize vehicle owners for using materials within the legally permitted standards for visual light transmission (Paras 1, 34).

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that if the glazing materials meet the required VLT as outlined in statutory guidelines, the authority lacks grounds to levy fines (Paras 21, 34).

Result: The writ petitions are disposed of, and the imposed penalties are quashed.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

The question arising for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the State Government in the Departments of Police or Motor Vehicles are legally authorised to penalise owners of motor vehicles who are maintaining the “Standards of Visual Transmission of Light (VLT)” as specified under Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('CMV Rules', for short) as amended with effect from 01.04.2021, by using “Safety Glazing” conforming to the standards stipulated under the Indian Standard; IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019.

2. In W.P.(C) No.23146/2022, the 1st petitioner is a Partnership Firm. The 1st petitioner is the sole distributor for the State of Kerala for products manufactured by M/s.Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. The 2nd petitioner is a citizen who was imposed with a fine of ₹250/- as per Ext.P8 challan issued by the 5th respondent-AMVI, alleging non-compliance of the standards of VLT for the wind screen or window glasses of his vehicle (motor car) bearing registration No.KL-39M-7002.

3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28289 of 2022 are aggrieved by the action of the Regional Transport Officer in issuing notices threatening cancellation of their registration on the ground that their shops are selling vehicle accessories and affixing sun films in motor vehicles causing alteration, in violation of Sections 52 and 182A(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .

4. Rule 100 of the CMV Rules as it stood prior to substitution effected from 01.04.2021 as per Ext.P4 Notification, was as follows:

“100.Safety glass:

(1) The windscreen and window glass of every motor vehicle including agriculture tractor fitted with cabin, construction equipment vehicle fitted with cabin and combine harvester shall be made of safety glass or safety glazing material:

Provided that in L5 category vehicles (three wheelers) and vehicles with hood and side coves, the window glass may be made of acrylic or plastic transparent sheet.

Explanation - For the purposes of this rule,-

(i) safety glass or safety glazing means the materials confirming to IS 2553 (Part 2) (Revision 1): 2019;

(ii) windscreen and window glass of motor vehicle, the inner surface of which is at an angle more than thirty degrees to longitudinal axis of the vehicles, shall be deemed to face to the front.

(2) The safety glass or safety glazing of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be so manufactured to provide not less than seventy percent visual transmission of light and it shall conform to Indian Standard IS 2553 (Part 2) (Revision 1): 2019 as amended from time to time.

(3) The safety glass or safety glazing used for side windows of every motor vehicle shall be so manufactured to provide not less than fifty percent visual transmission of light and it shall conform to Indian Standards IS 2553 (Part 2) (Revision 1): 2019 as amended from time to time.

(3-A) The owner of every motor vehicle shall maintain the visual transmission of light through safety glass or safety glazing as specified in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3).

(3-B) The glass of the front wind screen of a combine harvester shall be made of laminated safety glass.

(3-C) In cases where any manufacturer has complied with the provisions of this rule as they exist till the 31st March, 2021, such manufacturer may continue to do so till the 31st March, 2022, and in that situation it shall be presumed as if the provisions of clause (b) of rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2020, come into force, on the 1st April, 2022:

Provided that the manufacturers who comply with the provisions of this rule as they exist on the 1st April, 2021, they shall continue to do so.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient to do so in public interest, it may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt [any motor vehicle including construction equipment vehicle]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top