Kerala High Court
Marson Cheriyan vs The Transport Commissioner on 7 December, 2012
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/23RD ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No. 2575 of 2014 (V)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
MARSON CHERIYAN,
S/O.CHERIYAN, PROPRIETOR, TUBE LINKS,
MASJID ROAD, KOKALAI, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695001.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680 001.
3. THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR -680 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-10-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 2575 of 2014 (V)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION CERTIFICATE OF NP (GOODS)
WITH NATIONAL PERMIT AUTHORISATION NO.NP/KL/8/122012/16241
DATED 7.12.2012 ISSUED FROM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KERALA I
N FORM NUMBER 47 VALID UPTO 29.11.2013 IN THE CASE OF VEHICLE
NUMBER KL 08 AZ 47
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE OF NP (GOODS)
WITH NATIONAL PERMIT AUTHORISATION NO.NP/KL/8/122012/16236
DATED 7.12.2012 ISSUED FROM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KERALA
IN FORM NUMBER 47 VALID UPTO 29.11.2013 IN THE CASE OF
VEHICLE NUMBER KL 08 AZ 92
EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION CERTIFICATE OF NP (GOODS)
WITH NATIONAL PERMIT AUTHORISATION NO.NP/KL/8/012013/12460
DATED 5.1.2012 ISSUED FROM TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT KERALA IN
FORM NUMBER 47 VALID UPTO 29.11.2013 IN THE CASE OF VEHICLE
NUMBER KL 08 AZ 1508.
EXT.P-4: NATIONAL PERMIT FOR GOODS CARRIAGE NO.N.P.GD.C 8/5303/2012
VALID FROM 30.11.2012 TO 29.11.2017 FOR THE VEHICLE KL 08 AZ 47.
EXT.P-5: NATIONAL PERMIT FOR GOODS CARRIAGE NO.N.P.GD.C 8/5807/2012
VALID FROM 3.1.2013 TO 2.1.2018 FOR THE VEHICLE KL 08 AZ 92.
EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL PERMIT FOR GOODS CARRIAGE
NO.N.P.GD.C 8/5807/2012 VALID FROM 3.1.2013 TO 2.1.2018 FOR THE
VEHICLE KL 08 AZ 1508.
EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FORM 46 DATED
24.12.2013 IN THE CASE OF VEHICLE NUMBER KL 08 AZ 47.
EXT.P-7(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 24.12.2013 SHOWING THE
DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED AMOUNT.
EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FORM 46 DATED
24.12.2013 IN THE CASE OF VEHICLE NUMBER KL 08 AZ 92.
EXT.P-8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 24.12.2013 SHOWING THE
DATE OF PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED AMOUNT.
EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FORM 46 DATED
24.12.2013 IN THE CASE OF VEHICLE NUMBER KL 08 AZ 1508.
EXT.P-9(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 24.12.2013 SHOWING THE
DATE OF PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED AMOUNT
PJ
....2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 2575 of 2014 (V)
--------------------------------------
EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE
NUMBER KL 08 AZ 47.
EXT.P-11: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE
NUMBER KL 08 AZ 92.
EXT.P-12: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE
NUMBER KL 08 AZ 1508.
EXT.P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER G/236950/2013/R DATED 6.1.2014
AS PER THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY,RTA, THRISSUR.
EXT.P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE VERSION DATED 13.1.2014 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
====================================
W.P.(C)No.2575 of 2014
====================================
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2014.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is aggrieved with the non-renewal of authorization for three vehicles, having national permit bearing Reg.Nos.KL 08 AZ 47, KL 08 AZ 92 & KL 08 AZ 1508. Admittedly, two vehicles were purchased in the year 2012 and one in 2013, as is indicated in Exts.P1 to P3. The national permit for the vehicles were also obtained respectively for the years 30.11.2012 to 29.11.2017, 30.11.2012 to 29.11.2017 and 3.1.2013 to 2.1.2018. The petitioner, by Exts.P7 to P9, applied for renewal of the same, but the application was rejected by Ext.P13. All the three vehicles had authorisation earlier.
2. Ext.P13 order was passed, based on a complaint regarding the aforesaid vehicles and speaks of an enquiry having been conducted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Thrissur. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, who conducted inspection, reported that, the vehicles do W.P.(C)No.2575 of 2014 -:2:- not comply with the provisions of Rule 90(4) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The application for re-issue of authorisation in respect of all the three vehicles were rejected. Ext.P13 also directed to show cause as to why the permit and registration certificate of the vehicles should not be cancelled.
3. The petitioner specifically contended before this Court that he has provided sleeping space for the extra driver who has to travel in the vehicle when the same is plied outside the State. Petitioner also produced particulars of the space provided for the extra driver to take rest as indicated in sub rule (4) of Rule 90. In such circumstances, this Court directed production of the vehicles before the Secretary, RTA and also directed to file a report on the aspect. The report dated 7.3.2014 has been filed. The photographs of the vehicles of the petitioner have been produced along with the report. Looking at the photographs, it is clear that, all the three vehicles have been provided with a seat across the full width behind the driver's seat providing facility for the spare driver to stretch himself and sleep. The W.P.(C)No.2575 of 2014 -:3:- Secretary, RTA, however contends in the report that, there is not enough space available behind the driver's seat to have a comfortable sleep for the spare driver. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 90 is extracted hereunder:
"(4) The vehicle shall have a minimum of two drivers and shall be provided with a set across its full width behind the driver's seat providing facility for the spare driver to stretch himself and sleep.
Provided that the sub-rule shall apply to light motor vehicle and medium goods vehicles only from a date to be notified by the Central Government."
4. A reading of sub rule (4) would indicate that, the Secretary has, while interpreting the rule, taken up by himself to decide upon the degree of comfort which an extra driver would have in compliance of sub- rule (4). Definitely, the mandate in sub-rule (4) was not an empty formality and there should be space for a person to stretch himself and sleep for which the clear mandate of the statute warrants, which, definitely, the petitioner's vehicle complies with. The photographs W.P.(C)No.2575 of 2014 -:4:- produced with respect to the other vehicles obviously are of bigger lorries and it would have been appropriate for the Secretary, RTA to have compared the same with a vehicle of the very same description. This Court, on going through the report and also the photographs produced, is not convinced that the petitioner's vehicles do not comply with the standards prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicles rules.
5. Ext.P13 is hence set aside and the Authority is directed to consider the grant of authorisation, subject to the petitioner's vehicles satisfying all other formalities.
Writ petition is allowed. No costs.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.