Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs on 22 January, 2020
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.1534 OF 2020(N)
PETITIONER
SIJO P.SIVADASAN,
S/O. SIVADASAN,
POTTAKULATHI HOUSE, MALORAM, PERUMPILLY P.O.
PUTHUPPADY, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE 673 586.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SRI.T.R.TARIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE 673 572.
3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KODUVALLY,
KOZHIKODE 673 572.
SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2020
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
The case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: The petitioner is the registered owner of the Tipper bearing Regn. No.KL 57-N-3519, KL 57-Q-564 and KL 57-Q-581. The vehicle is having valid permit for contract carriage and vehicle is also having valid fitness certified issued by the authority. The vehicle tax remitted in respect of the above vehicles were only upto 31.12.2019 and when the petitioner approached the respondent for remitting the vehicle tax for the current period that are not accepting the same stating that check reports are pending as against the petitioner's vehicle. As the respondent has not accepted the vehicle tax the petitioner is not in a position to ply his vehicle which is causing several financial loss to the petitioner. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:
W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2020
..3..
"
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent to accept vehicle tax in respect of Petitioners vehicle bearing Regn No.KL 57-N-3519, KL 57-Q-564 and KL 57-Q-581 forthwith.
b) Grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings."
2. After hearing both sides and after perusal of the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the matter in issue is covered in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the dictum laid down by this Court in the decisions as in Kerala Bus Transport Association and Another v. Transport Commissioner [2013(1) KLT 440] para 10 reads as follows:
"Then again this Court in Calicut Wayanad Motor Service (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1986 KHC 314 : 1986 KLT 1216 : AIR 1987 Ker. 21 :
1986 KLN SN 74 : 1987 (1) Cur. CC 633 : 1987 (2) Civ. LJ 390 held that a statutory functionary cannot pressurise another to perform an act not authorised by Statute. It was held therein as follows: "The Collector has evinced unjustified though possibly bona fide exuberance of enthusiasm while resorting to a recovery method not sanctioned by law. He cannot, by pursuation or by pressure, make another statutory functionary to an act which that authority does not possess under the Statute under which it functions."
I have no hesitation to hold that clauses 20 and 30 of Ext.P1 circular enabling the refusal of renewal of permit or declining the certificate of fitness because of the mere pendency of a 'check report' is wholly inequitable. The owner/permit holder cannot be kept on tenterhooks awaiting the culmination of the proceedings pursuant to a 'check report' for him to continue the service being operated. Clauses 20 and 30 of Ext.P1 circular would pressurise the owner/permit holder to part with Rs.10,000/- on receipt of a charge memo even in the absence of a prior decision of the Transport Authority as regards breach. The likelihood of a 'check report' being misused by a checking officer to extract money from the vehicles whose permit is on the verge of renewal cannot at all be overlooked."
W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2020
..4..
3. The said dictum has been followed in a series of judgments and therefore it is by now no longer res integra that mere pendency of adverse entries in the check reports against the vehicle of the registered owner concerned cannot be the ground for denying acceptance of motor vehicles tax or for other benefits like renewal of fitness certificate, etc. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the 3rd respondent will either electronically or manually take steps to accept the motor vehicle tax in respect of the petitioner's vehicle without much delay and mere pendency of check reports in respect of the petitioner's vehicle shall not be a ground for non acceptance of the motor vehicle tax.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2020 ..5..
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BERING REGN NO. KL 57-N-3519 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BERING REGN NO. KL 57-Q-564 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE BERING REGN NO. KL 57-Q-581.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT NO. P. GD. 57/1378/2016 DATED 7.6.2016 PERTAINING TO VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO. KL 57-N-3519 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT NO. P.GD. 57/1315/2017 DATED 1.6.2017 PERTAINING TO VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO.
KL 57-Q-564 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT NO. P. GD. 57/1314/2017 DATED 1.6.2017 PERTAINING TO VEHICLE BEARING REGN NO.
KL 57-Q-581 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.