IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361

WP(C).No. 15766 of 2013 (U)

----------------------------

PETITIONER(S):

-------------

K.P.SUNILKUMAR,

PROPRIETOR AND DEALER,

S.S. MOTORS, S.S. TOWER,

KIZHUTHALLY, P.O. THAZHE CHOUVA, KANNUR,

PIN - 670 002.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.VATHSALAN

SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN

SMT.THUSHARA V.

RESPONDENT(S):

-------------

1. STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

PIN - 695 001.

2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

(MOTOR VEHICLE), CIVIL STATION, CALICUT,

PIN - 673 001.

3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,

CIVIL STATION, KANNUR.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.J.MICHAEL.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD

ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

rvs.

WP(C).No. 15766 of 2013 (U)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

-----------------------

EXHIBIT P1.

COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.11.2012 BY THE 3RD

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2.

COPY OF THE LIST OF VEHICLE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P1.

EXHIBIT P3.

COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4.

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27535/2012.

EXHIBIT P5.

COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.5.2013 BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

-----------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

====================================

W.P.(C)No.15766 of 2013

====================================

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2015.

JUDGMENT

1.Petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P1 notice issued to him by the

third respondent. Though Ext.P1 is styled as a notice, it is in fact

an order imposing a compunding fee of Rs.3,74,000/- on the

petitioner, admittedly, a dealer in motor cycles, for reason of

carrying on the dealership, without a valid trade certificate.

2.The petitioner was running a dealership of Royal Enfield (Bullet)

motor cycles. Petitioner also was in possession of three trade

certificates for transporting the vehicles sold, for registration.

Petitioner failed to renew the trade certificates after the same

expired on 17.9.2011. The omission was detected only on

11.10.2012, when the petitioner made an application for renewal

of trade certificate. It was only on such renewal application

W.P.(C)No.15766 of 2013

-:2:-

being filed that the authorities too noticed the expiry and the

renewal, having not been effected. The petitioner had carried on

the business of sale of motor cycles even after the expiry of trade

certificate, which led to the impugned order being issued.

3.Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred

to as the “Act”, for short) prohibits any motor cycle to be driven

in a public place or on any other place, unless there is a display

of the registration mark in the prescribed manner, obtained on

the registration of the vehicle in accordance with Chapter IV.

The proviso to the said section exempts dealers in motor vehicles

from the rigor of the said prohibition, however on conditions

prescribed by the Central Government.

4.Rule 33 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for

issuance of trade certificate to dealers for use of motor vehicles

in public place as exempted under Section 39. A trade certificate

W.P.(C)No.15766 of 2013

-:3:-

issued to a dealer is valid for one year and the registration mark

in such certificate can be used only on one vehicle at a time.

This facilitates the registration of the vehicles and the use of the

vehicle on public roads, pursuant to the sale effected by the

dealer.

5.A sale effected or a dealership carried on, without obtaining the

said trade certificate would invite a penalty under Section 192

(1) of the Act. Section 177 is a general provision, wherein

contrav