Karnataka High Court
Smt N Shivabhakkiam, vs The Joint Commissioner For Transport, on 25 August, 2012
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011 (MV)
IN W.P.Nos.26208 - 26211/2011:
BETWEEN:
SMT. N.SHIVABHAKKIAM
W/O K.P.NATARAJAN
48 YEARS, DIRECTOR
M/S K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.
NO.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD, KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE
AND AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE
7TH FLOOR, MSIL, BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE
2. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE CENTRAL
-2-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011
B.D.A. COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE (CENTRAL)
BDA, COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP)
THESE WP's ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF R1 DATED 27.4.2011 MADE IN APPEAL
NO.7(RGN)09-10, APPEAL NO.8(RGN)/09-10, APPEAL
0NO.9(RGN) 09-10 & APPEAL NO.10(RGN)/09-10 VIDE ANN-O &
QUASH THE ORDERS OF R3 DT.2.2.10 VIDE ANNEX-B, C, D &
E & QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE R4 DT.13.6.11, VIDE
ANN-P, Q, R & S AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.26309/2011 :
BETWEEN:
SRI N.RAJESH
S/O K.P.NATARAJAN
AGED 34 YEARS, DIRECTOR
M/S K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.
NO.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD, KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE
AND AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011
AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE
7TH FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE
2. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
BANGALORE CENTRAL
B.D.A. COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE (CENTRAL)
BDA, COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF R1 DATED 27.4.2011 MADE IN APPEAL
NO.3(RGN)/09-10 VIDE ANN-E & QUASH THE ORDERS OF R3
DT.2.2.10 VIDE ANN-B & QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R4
DT.13.6.11 VIDE ANN-F AND ETC.,
IN W.P.No.26212/2011 :
BETWEEN:
SRI K.P.NATARAJAN
S/O PONNUMALAI GOUNDER
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
-4-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011
M/S K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.
NO.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD, KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE
AND ALSO AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE
7TH FLOOR, MSIL, BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE
2. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE CENTRAL
B.D.A. COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE (CENTRAL)
BDA COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF R1 DATED 27.4.2011 MADE IN APPEAL VIDE
-5-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011
ANNEX-E AND QUASH THE ORDERS OF R3 DT.2.2.10 VIDE
ANNEX-B AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RES
DT.13.6.2011 VIDE ANNEX-F AND ETC.,
IN W.P.Nos.26206-207/2011
BETWEEN:
SRI M.SWAMINATHAN
S/O M.MARAPPA GOUNDER
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
M/S K.P.N.TRAVELS (INDIA) LTD.
NO.20/1, SWAMY COMPLEX
A.V.ROAD, KALASIPALYAM
BANGALORE
AND ALSO AT:
CHIKKABAJANE MANDIR STREET
SARJAPUR POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT
(BANGALORE URBAN AND RURAL)
BANGALORE
7TH FLOOR, MSIL BUILDING
CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE
2. THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICER AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE CENTRAL
B.D.A. COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE (CENTRAL), BDA, COMPLEX
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE
-6-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W
W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 &
26206 - 26207/2011
4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
AND REGISTERING AUTHORITY
ELECTRONIC CITY
BANGALORE ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP)
THESE WP's ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF R1 DATED 27.4.2011 MADE IN APPEAL
NO.03(RGN)/2009-10 & (RGN)/2009-10 VIDE ANN-H & QUASH
THE ORDERS OF R3 DT.2.2.10 VIDE ANN-B & C & QUASH THE
ORDER OF R4, DT.13.6.11 VIDE ANN-J & K AND ETC.
THESE WP's COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
Learned counsel on both sides submit that in all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders of the Appellate Authority holding that the petitioners' vehicles are Camper Vans. The said finding of 'Camper Van' is under challenge in all these writ petitions. By consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the petitions are heard on merits. -7-
W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 & 26206 - 26207/2011
2. I have heard Shri C.V.Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri T.K.Vedamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the definition of 'Camper Van' given in the notification dated 5th November 2004 issued under Section 41(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Central Government which reads as follows:
" 'Camper van' means a special purpose M1 category vehicle constructed to include living accommodation which contains at least the following equipment:-
Seats and table Sleeping accommodation which may be converted from the seats Cooking facilities, and Storage facilities This equipment shall be rigidly fixed to the living compartment; however, the -8- W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 & 26206 - 26207/2011 table may be designed to be easily removable."
As stated above, only a M1 category vehicle would fall within the definition of a 'Camper van'. M1 category vehicle is defined in Rule 2( l ) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as follows:
" 'Category M1' means a motor vehicle used for carriage of passengers, comprising not more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat.
Note.― Definitions of type of body work for motor vehicles of Category M1 shall be in accordance with Annexure I of AIS 053: 2005, as amended from time to time, till the corresponding BIS specifications are notified under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (63 of 1986);"
As could be seen from the definition of 'Category M1' stated above, a vehicle would fall within the definition of 'category M1' if it does not have more than 8 seats in addition to the driver's -9- W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 & 26206 - 26207/2011 seat. The petitioners' vehicles cannot fall within the definition of 'Camper Van' as admittedly the vehicles in question contain more than 8 + 1 seats. The learned HCGP does not dispute that the petitioners' vehicles contain more than 8 + 1 seats.
4. There is no proper consideration of the matter by the Appellate Authority. It has not referred to the definitions stated above in determining whether the petitioners' vehicles would fall within the definition of 'Camper Van'. The matter requires to be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority in the light of the aforesaid definitions.
5. In view of the above, I make the following order:
The orders of the Appellate Authority impugned in these writ petitions are set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law. All the -10- W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 C/W W.P.Nos.26309/2011, 26212/2011 & 26206 - 26207/2011 consequential orders passed pursuant to the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority are also set-aside. The Appellate Authority shall reconsider the matter in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
In view of disposal of the writ petitions, I.A.No.1/2012 in W.P.Nos.26208-26211/2011 and I.A.No.1/2012 in W.P.No.26212/2011 do not survive for consideration; they stand disposed of accordingly.
Petitions disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn/ata.