Kerala High Court
Midhun Mathew Abraham vs The Joint Road Transport Officer (Joint ... on 5 October, 2021
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
W.A.No1058 of 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
WA NO. 1058 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 6327/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MIDHUN MATHEW ABRAHAM,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.ABRAHAM MATHEW, IRIPOOTTIL ANAPARAMBIL P.O., THALAVADY
VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-689 112.
BY ADV B.PRAMOD
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER (JOINT RTO),
SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KUTTANAD, ALAPUZHA,
PIN-688 504.
2 HARIS,
MH HOUSE, PUNNAKULAM KARA, AADHINAD VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY
TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN-690 518.
3 NATIONAL INFORMATIC CENTRE,
A BLOCK, LOCHI ROAD, CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 003,
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL.
4 UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH FOR R1
SRI.P.A.ABHILASH FOR R2
SRI.R.PRASANTH KUMAR, CGC FOR R3 & R4
SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No1058 of 2021 2
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021 SHAJI P.CHALY,J.
This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 29.7.2021 in W.P.(C) No.6327 of 2021, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, holding that the entry in regard to the cases pending against the writ petitioner in the parivahan portal of the Central Government as contemplated under the amended provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, enabled the authority to include any vehicle in the list of vehicles, over which an objection is pending. It was also held that such entries are made to caution the public that the vehicle is involved in other proceedings, thereby the essential services under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition basically holding that since there are criminal proceedings pending, there is no reason to interfere and grant any relief to the appellant.
2. The basic material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows; appellant/writ petitioner is the registered owner of a contract W.A.No1058 of 2021 3 carriage bearing registration No.KL05 AG 8002. According to the appellant, appellant purchased the said vehicle by availing financial assistance from Indusind Bank Ltd. and an endorsement to that effect has been made on the certificate of registration. On 30.8.2019, appellant entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for sale of the vehicle and thereupon, the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the 2 nd respondent. It is submitted by the appellant that as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the total sale consideration was Rs.23,90,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of agreement and the rest of the amount was agreed to be paid within 30 days from the completion of sale and on issuance of clearance certificate/non-objection certificate from the financier. It was also mentioned that the 2nd respondent has to pay instalments due to the financier and the vehicle tax liability till the completion of sale.
3. It is also submitted that when the appellant later contacted the 2nd respondent seeking balance sale consideration for completing the sale, the 2nd respondent refused to make payment citing one reason or the other. Later, appellant noticed that the 2 nd respondent had committed a default in making payment of Equated Monthly Installments and not paid the vehicle tax also. When the petitioner approached the 2 nd W.A.No1058 of 2021 4 respondent, he expressed his inability to purchase the vehicle and informed that he intends to withdraw the agreement entered into by and between them. Accordingly, the appellant paid Rs.4,00,000/- and the remaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was adjusted against the defaulted EMIs as well as the tax, which had to be paid by the 2 nd respondent. Thus, according to the appellant, as mutually agreed between the parties, appellant took back the vehicle from the 2 nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent, with the help of a Police Officer, attempted to take forcible possession of the vehicle from the appellant. Thereupon, appellant filed Exhibit P2 suit and obtained Exhibit P3 injunction order restraining the 2 nd respondent and the Police Officer from taking forcible possession of the vehicle. On coming to know about the injunction order secured by the appellant, the 2nd respondent submitted Exhibit P4 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, against the appellant and others, alleging that appellant took away his vehicle. The said complaint was forwarded to Karunagappally Police Station and Crime No.1766/2019 was registered alleging offences under section 447, 448, 379, 380, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and according to the appellant, the Police after a farcical investigation, has filed the final report in the crime alleging offences under sections 447 and 420 read with 34 W.A.No1058 of 2021 5 IPC.
4. It is submitted by the appellant that while matters being so, appellant could understand that the status of his vehicle in the 'VAHAN' portal is shown as blacklisted based on a petition filed by the 2 nd respondent highlighting the registration of the crime and submission of G form under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act seeking exemption of tax in respect of the vehicle . According to the appellant, subsequent to the blacklisting of the vehicle, the appellant could not use or dispose of the vehicle. Hence, the writ petition was filed by the appellant.
5. In the writ appeal a counter affidavit is filed by the Joint Road Transport Officer, Sub Regional Office, Alappuzha - 1 st respondent, basically contending that the "Parivahan - Sewa" project is the flagship project initiated by Government of India in the light of new amendment to rule 139 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, validating the electronic from of motor vehicle documents. It is further submitted that this e-portal consists of a huge number of modules, which intends to give most of the services online to the public. The Motor Vehicles Department, Kerala, has migrated the MORTH's Parivahan-Sewa' software, thereby introducing the newly web based software so called 'Parivahan/Vahan' developed by the NIC and controlled by the Central Ministry. The fresh licence related W.A.No1058 of 2021 6 activities of all offices in the State were shifted to 'Sarathi' from 01.01.2019 and the registration related activities of all new vehicles of all the offices in the State were shifted to 'Vahan' w.e.f. 01.04.2019. The said website consists of numerous modules and one such module is 'Blacklist', which includes the vehicle numbers and licence numbers having Audit Objections, Complaints, Court Cases and Check Reports etc. Accordingly, the website including its modules is introduced in consonance with the initiative of Central Government for "One Nation one Licence Policy" and is very well recognised under Rule 139 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The 'BLACKLIST' in 'PARIVAHAN' is the new version of 'OBJECTION' in 'SMART MOVE', which was the older version of the work nature in Kerala Motor Vehicles Department.
6. It is also submitted that rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, is amended inserting the words "in physical or electronic form", thereby allowing the production of motor vehicle documents in electronic form also. For the sake of convenience and brevity, amended rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is reproduced:
"139. Production of licence and certificate of registration.- (1) The driver or conductor of a motor vehicle shall produce certificates of registration, insurance, fitness and permit, the driving licence certificate for Pollution Under Check and any other relevant documents in physical or electronic form, as available on or W.A.No1058 of 2021 7 downloaded from the portal, on demand by any police officer in uniform or any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, and if any or all of the documents are not in his possession, he shall produce in person an extract or extracts of the documents duly attested by any police officer or by any other officer or send it to the officer who demanded the documents by registered post within fifteen days from the date of demand.
Provided that after validation of the documents in electronic form, referred to in sub-rule (1), by any police officer in uniform or any other officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, if the information in documents are found to be valid and in force, then physical forms of such documents shall not be demanded for inspection, including in cases where there is an offence made out necessitating seizure of any such documents.
(2) Upon demanding or inspecting any documents referred under sub-rule (1), the date and time stamp of inspection and identity of the police officer in uniform or any other officer authorised by the State Government, shall be recorded on the Portal."
7. Other provisions are also introduced into the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for seizure of documents produced in electronic form by introducing rule 139A and in the matter of procedure for issuance and payment of challan. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Government Pleader, provisions are incorporated in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for ensuring that sufficient details are W.A.No1058 of 2021 8 contained in the portal so as to caution the public at large in respect of the vehicle involved in any crime and other cases.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant submitted that there is no enabling provision in the Rules, 1989, empowering the Motor Vehicles Authority/Authorities to blacklist any motor vehicle. However learned Government Pleader submitted that the term "blacklisting" is used as a nomenclature so as to make the citizens alert in respect of the details of a particular vehicle incorporated in the portal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Sri.B.Pramod, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.K.P.Harish for the State Officials, Sri.R.Prasanth Kumar for the National Informatics Centre, New Delhi, and the Union of India and Sri.P.A.Abhilash appearing for the party respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
10. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether the State Motor Vehicles Authority is entitled to blacklist or rather incorporate the details of any crime in which a vehicle is involved in the parivahan portal introduced by the Central Government for the purpose of tackling certain specified situations ? Before going to the amended rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, discussed above, certain of the other provisions in the amended rules may have to be taken into consideration. W.A.No1058 of 2021 9 In rule 2 (xa), of the amended rules word 'portal' is defined to mean a web or electronic based system set up and maintained by the Central Government for -
(i) facilitating licensing, registration, issuance of certificate of fitness and permits of motor vehicles;
(ii) recording of offences including compounding, impounding, making endorsements, suspension and revocation of licenses and registrations.
(iii) Issuance of e-challan
(iv) preserving, retaining and granting access to machine readable, printable, shareable, verifiable and secure electronic records.
11. The definition of 'portal' makes it clear and specific that there is a provision for recording of offences including compounding, impounding, making endorsements, suspension and revocation of licenses and registrations, apart from other aspects specified therein. On a reading of rule 139, it would be clear that it deals with different aspects so as to enable the driver or conductor of a motor vehicle to produce the documents relating to the motor vehicle and the driving licence by downloading the same from the portal on demand by any Police Officer in uniform or any other officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, if any or all of the documents are not in his possession. Likewise W.A.No1058 of 2021 10 rule 139A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as amended deals with seizure of documents produced in electronic form also, which provisions have nothing to do with the entry of offences etc. in the parivahan portal, however it is clear and convincing from the definition of web portal discussed above that the portal is created for such purposes with the largest interest of cautioning the public or any person dealing with particular vehicle. As we have pointed out above the expression "Blacklisting" is a module available to denote the details of the crime registered to have sufficient significance to the laudable object of the provision. It is also worthwhile to note that the petitioner has not challenged the provision. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the Motor Vehicles Authority is vested with ample powers to incorporate the details of the offences in relation to a vehicle in the parivahan portal as per the clear provision of law discussed above, and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that the appellant had made out any case of arbitrariness and illegality before the writ court and therefore the writ court was right in dismissing the writ petition.
12. Considering the legal and factual circumstances involved and the undisputed fact that vehicle in question claims to be that of the appellant is involved in offences initiated at the behest of the 2 nd respondent in the W.A.No1058 of 2021 11 writ petition vizHarish, M H House, Punnakulam Kara, Aadhinad Village, Karunagappally Taluk, Kollam. Matters being so, we have no hesitation to hold that appellant has not made out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, there being no jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifiable to be interfered with in an intra court appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
Needless to say, writ appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
smv JUDGE.