Allowed

C D Chacko v. the Union of India

Kerala HC1 Dec 2017WP(C)/35971/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench addressed connected writ petitions regarding non-registration of stage/contract carriages due to Rule 125C of CMV Rules. Court directed registration of pre-existing models and compliant vehicles after necessary enquiry within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Taken into account previous directives; directed that vehicles manufactured prior to 01.10.2014 and those satisfying Rule 125C must be registered after necessary enquiry, to be completed within three

C D Chacko Vs the Union of India — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 35971 of 2017 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C D CHACKO

¶8

S/O DEVASSY, CHITTILAPPILLY HOSUE, OLARIKKARA, PULLAZHI POST, THRISSUR- 680 012

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP.RESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI- 110 001

¶12

2. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY (REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER), THRISSUR, PIN- 680 003

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.L.VENUKUMAR, CGC

¶14

SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 36501/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 35971 of 2017 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 02-09-2017 ISSUED BY M/S T.V. SUNDRAM IYENGAR & SONS PVT LTD TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBITP2	PHOTOCOPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 07-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR RENEWAL OF ACCREDITATION ISSUED TO M/S ARROW COACH BUILDERS BY THE CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF ROAD TRANSPORT (CIRT) DATED 23-12-2015
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S ARROW COACH BUILDERS DATED 28-09-2017
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBITP6	PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19-07-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBITP7	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.854/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 22-03-2017

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) Nos. 35971, 36501, 36529, 36820, 37283, 37359, 37487,38366 & 38449 of 2017

¶26

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in

¶29

respect of non-registration of stage carriages/contract carriages consequent to the introduction of sub rule 1 of Rule 125C of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules on 30.9.2017.

¶30

Which thus means, the vehicles which are not complying with the stipulations under the aforesaid Rule, cannot be registered after 30.9.2017. In some of the writ petitions contentions advanced by the petitioners is that since 30.9.2017, 1.10.2017 and 2.10.2017 were being public holidays, the petitioners could not produce the vehicles on the aforesaid dates, however, such vehicles were produced on the next working day i.e., 3.10.2017, but, the statutory authority did not register the vehicles stating that, it is hit by sub rule 1 of Rule 125C of the CMV Rules. In some of the writ petitions petitioners have a contention that, the models of the vehicles manufactured are prior to 01.10.2014, and therefore, such

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos. 35971, 36501, 36529, 36820, 37283, 37359, 37487,38366 & 38449 of 2017

¶32

¶33

vehicles are not hit by introduction of sub rule 1 of Rule 125C of CMV Rules. In some other cases, petitioners have a contention that, the vehicles are satisfying the requirements of sub rule 1 of Rule 125C of CMV Rules, but, the vehicles were not registered by the statutory authority in the guise of sub rule 1 of Rule 125C of CMV Rules.

¶34

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned special Government Pleader, I think it is only appropriate that writ petitions are disposed of with suitable directions. So far as the vehicles of which the models are of prior to 01.10.2014, the same shall be registered if the vehicles were produced on 3.10.2017 before the statutory authority, after conducting necessary enquiry in respect of he production of the vehicles accordingly. The same parameter will be applicable to the vehicles which are satisfying to the requirements of sub rule 1 of Rule 125C. If any vehicles are produced after 3.10.2017, for which the requirements of sub

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) Nos. 35971, 36501, 36529, 36820, 37283, 37359, 37487,38366 & 38449 of 2017

¶37

rule 1 of Rule 125(c) is not applicable, the said vehicles shall

¶38

also be registered after carrying out necessary enquiry in accordance with law.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.2336/2017 dated 23.11.2014, and specifically to paragraph 4, which read thus:-

¶40

“However, we find from the material on record that the scope of Rule 125C has been examined by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment in W.P(C)No.845 of 2017 and connected cases, wherein the view taken by this Court is that Rule 125(1) applies only to new models of vehicles introduced by the manufacturers after 01.10.2014 after obtaining prototype approval, subject to the provisions contained in the proviso to the Rule”

¶41

I have also gone through the judgment and find that, a further direction was issued by the Division Bench stating that, the registration shall only be on the petitioners satisfying the registering authority that the Model of the

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) Nos. 35971, 36501, 36529, 36820, 37283, 37359, 37487,38366 & 38449 of 2017

¶44

vehicle was an existing one as on 1.10.2014. The said directives shall also be taken into account. The process shall be undertaken and completed by the registering authority, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶48

dlk/1/12/

C D Chacko v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C D Chacko v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Adhyapaka Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited No 794 Vs Mani K C

The Board of Directors of the Angadi Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies (General)

Dayan Jacob Madhu Vs Registrar,Kerala University of Health Sciences

Kuriakose N.T. Vs Shina Mol I.A.S

K. Sudhakaran Vs B.S. Canth