The demand for a driver's license under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be within the legal authority and duly supported by specifics of the alleged violations.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of a motor car bearing registration No.KL-2/AB 9599. He has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued by the 4th respondent-Regional Transport Officer.

2. Ext.P1 alleges that, the vehicle in question was found having violated traffic signal and speed limits on several occasions (four). The notice alleges that the user of the vehicle is a threat for pedestrians and other users of the road. Ext.P1 further calls for production of the driving licence of the person who drove the vehicle within three days in terms of Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act . Ext.P1 further cautioned the petitioner that, if the driving licence as called for is not produced within the time, the petitioner's driving licence and also the registration of the vehicle will be cancelled.

3. The writ petition contains various narratives/

personal allegations against the 4th respondent. He has also been impleaded in his personal capacity as the 5th respondent. For the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition I do not think it necessary to go into the factual details since, Ext.P1, on the face of it, is unsustainable for reasons more than one.

4. Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act only enables to call for information of the driver, including his licence details, which could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by the owner of the vehicle. There is no provision to call for production of licence of the registered owner. Calling upon the petitioner to produce the driving licence of the person who had driven the vehicle at the time of the alleged violations, is evidently beyond authority.

5. Secondly, the warning in Ext.P1 that in the event of non-production of the licence as demanded, the registration of the petitioner's vehicle and his driving licence will be cancelled, is without any sanction of law. Section 133 does not authorise such a course.

6. All these apart, Ext.P1 does not give any details of the alleged violations except for a mere statement that there has been violations on four occasions. The time, place and date are conspicuously absent. The petitioner purchased the vehicle only in February, 2015. The check report details in respect of the vehicle, made available by the petitioner, for the period from 04.04.2013 to 30.03.2018 reveals that, after the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner there has been only one offence detected and that too of speed violation. All the other occurred much prior to the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. To sum up, Ext.P1 only deserves to be quashed.

7. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 notice dated 25.07.2018 is quashed. While clarifying that I have not considered the merits or otherwise of the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition, the same are left open to be agitated before appropriate forum if the petitioner so chooses.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14022/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.07.2018 TO EXT.P1.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.12.2018 TO EXT. P3.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FROM THE OFFICE OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE WITH ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

31.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORTS.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.02.2019 UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF