Kerala High Court
Anoop K.A vs Biju Prabhakar on 28 March, 2022
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
Monday, the 28th day of March 2022 / 7th Chaithra, 1944
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1728 OF 2021 IN WP(C)39574/2018
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WP:
1. ANOOP K.A, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOOLIYEDAN HOUSE,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PRESIDENT, ALL KERALA
TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
2. SUBIN PAUL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.E.P.PAULOSE, EDAYENAL HOUSE,
KERIINAD.P.O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, SECRETARY, ALL KERALA
TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
BY ADVS.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN AND K.R.PRATHISH,
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP:
1.K.R.JYOTHILAL(CORRECTED)
SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001
R1 IS CORRECTED AS
BIJU PRABHAKAR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
R1 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/11/2021 IN IA/2/2021
IN COC 1728/2021
2.MR AJITH KUMAR, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
3.SHAJI MADHAVAN,
THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-II,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.
4.KUNJUMON K.P (CORRECTED),
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE ENFORCEMENT,
CENTRAL ZONE-II, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM-682 030.
R4 IS CORRECTED AS
ANANTHAKRISHAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE ENFORCEMENT, CENTRAL ZONE-II,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030
NAME OF R4 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/11/2021 IN IA/2/2021
IN COC 1728/2021
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
28.03.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
------------------------------
Cont.Case(C)No.1728 of 2021
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2022
ORDER
The petitioners, who are the President and Secretary respectively of All Kerala Truck Owners Association, have filed this Contempt Case (Civil) invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to issue notice to the respondents herein, frame charges against them, proceed against them, and punish them for wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 29.07.2019 in W.P.(C)No.39574 of 2018 [Anoop K.A. and another v. State of Kerala and others - 2019 (5) KHC 414].
2. In the order dated 28.10.2021 in this Contempt Case, it was noticed that, since the plying of goods vehicles on public place flouting the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the direction contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414] is likely to cause danger to other road users, this is a fit case in which this Court can exercise its inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in order to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 2 elderly persons and differently-abled persons.
3. In the order dated 09.02.2022 in this Contempt Case, it was noticed that, in view of the direction contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414], in cases in which the offence of carrying overload in goods carriages is detected, the duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall forthwith forward the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle to the Licensing Authority, for initiating proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is for respondents 2 to 4 to ensure strict compliance of the directions contained in the said judgment. In the affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is stated that, due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the Enforcement Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department have shown leniency by not suspending the driving licence except in grave offences. The aforesaid stand taken by respondents 2 to 4 are in violation of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in Anoop K.A., which requires serious consideration by this Court. Similarly, any Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 3 interference with the enforcement activities of the officers in the Motor Vehicles Department, either by the Torus/tipper drivers and owners or by the office bearers of their unions, or any threat faced by such officers from their side, also requires serious consideration by this Court.
4. Today, when this contempt case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that some more time is required to re-present the reply affidavit after curing the defect. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that a memo dated 11.03.2022 has already been filed on the issuance of challan to goods carriage bearing No.KL-68/1107 owned by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, referred to in paragraph 21 of the order dated 09.02.2022. The documents produced along with the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner have already been handed over to the concerned respondents for getting instructions.
5. In Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India [(2005) 12 SCC 642] the Apex Court noticed from the reply affidavit filed by the Union of India that overloading causes significant damage to Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 4 the road surface and also cause pollution through auto-emissions. Overloaded vehicles are safety hazards not only for themselves, but also for other road users. Before the Apex Court it was pointed out that since the responsibility of enforcing of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is that of the State Government they have been advised by the Central Government to scrupulously enforce the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. The matter was discussed at the 30th meeting of the Transport Development Council where the following decisions were taken;
(i) Strict enforcement of the provisions relating to overloading under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
(ii) The State Governments are not to issue special cards/passes which legalise overloading.
(iii) - (iv) xxxx xxxx xxxx
(v) Non-renewal of registration and denial of permit to habitual offenders of overloading."
6. On 25.03.2022, a news report with photograph appeared in Malayala Manoramma daily on the protest made by torus operators in front of Panniyankara Toll Plaza in Mannuthy- Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 5 Wadakkencherry six-lane stretch of National Highway-66. The said news report is extracted hereunder;
As evident from the photograph, most of the torus vehicles are overloaded. Torus vehicles were parked blocking vehicular traffic Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 6 in the six-lane stretch of National Highway-66.
7. Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 made by the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and in supersession of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, was notified vide G.S.R.634(E) dated 23.06.2017. Regulation 3, which deals with duty towards other road users and general public, provides that no vehicle shall be driven, stopped or parked on a road or in a public place in such a manner as is likely to endanger the safety of or cause inconvenience to other road users. Regulation 5 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 5, the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary, does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to the occupants of any properties.
8. In Writ Petition (C) No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a public-spirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, the Apex Court constituted a Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 7 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014, and notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said writ petition the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 - S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 516]. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with due earnestness and seriousness. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. In paragraph 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of Lane Driving, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634 (E) dated 23.06.2017, which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 8 contains various directions issued by the Apex Court.
9. As noticed by the Apex Court in Paramjit Bhasin [(2005) 12 SCC 642] overloading causes significant damage to the road surface and also cause pollution through auto-emissions. Overloaded vehicles are safety hazards not only for themselves, but also for other road users. The responsibility of enforcing of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is that of the State Government and the Central Government have advised the State Governments to scrupulously enforce the provisions of the said Act and the Rules. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran v. [(2018) 13 SCC 516] all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with due earnestness and seriousness. The provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly.
10. The 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner shall file a report before this Court on the action taken against the torus vehicles and other goods vehicles involved in the protest in front Cont.Case (C)No.1728 of 2021 9 of Panniyankara Toll Plaza in Mannuthy-Wadakkencherry six-lane stretch of National Highway-66, on 25.03.2022, which were carrying overload.
As requested by the learned Special Government Pleader, list on 01.06.2022.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
JUDGE
yd
28-03-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar