Back
Bars RTO From Summoning Owner on Anonymous Complaint
A driver cannot be summoned on the basis of a alleging . The has firmly ruled that transport authorities lack the power to investigate such complaints, declaring that the Motor Vehicles Act does not permit anonymous allegations to trigger official action.
Case Background: A Phone Call That Sparked a Legal Fight
Nirmal Mathew Babu, the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration number KL-69/D-9002, received a telephone call from a asking him to appear at the in Kakkanad, Ernakulam, with his driving licence, registration certificate, and other documents. No written notice was served; only an oral instruction over the phone.
Alarmed by what he perceived as harassment without legal basis, Mr. Babu approached the High Court seeking a direction that the respondents—the and the Regional Transport Officer—not intimidate or summon him except in accordance with law.
The RTO's Justification: A Preliminary Enquiry
In a statement filed before the court, the second respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, explained that an anonymous complainant had approached the office alleging that Mr. Babu's vehicle was driven in a rash and dangerous manner, causing obstruction and inconvenience to other road users. The RTO directed a to conduct a to verify the facts. The inspector's phone call to Mr. Babu was merely an administrative step, they argued, and no had been initiated. The complainant's identity was withheld on grounds of confidentiality.
Court's Analysis: No Power Under the Act to Investigate
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, hearing the , scrutinised the provisions of the . The court pointed out that the respondents could not cite any provision authorising the RTO or to investigate a complaint of rash or dangerous driving.
“The offences specified in can only be investigated by the police, that too, after a . As far as and of MV Act are concerned, those proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of any or without a proper notice.”
The court further noted that allegations of could also constitute an offence under the , which again falls squarely within the domain of police investigation. Without a , transport authorities have no to proceed.
and : A Practice Unknown to Law
The court expressed strong disapproval of the practice of keeping both the complaint and the complainant's identity secret. The RTO's argument that confidentiality was maintained to protect the complainant's identity was rejected outright.
“ for a complainant or hiding a complaint are matters unknown to law. Such an approach amounts to .”
The court observed that the circumstances created a legitimate apprehension in the petitioner's mind, and that withholding information about the complaint violated .
The Decision: A Direction to Cease Harassment
Allowing the , the court issued a clear direction:
“There will be a direction to the second respondent or anybody acting under him, not to harass, intimidate or summon the petitioner except otherwise than in accordance with law.”
The judgment underscores that transport authorities must act strictly within the bounds of their statutory powers. cannot be used as a tool to summon vehicle owners without following . The power to investigate vests exclusively with the police, and any deviation from this principle will be struck down as arbitrary.
