Allowed

Binson v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020WP(C)/24112/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition seeking transfer of ownership of a heavy goods vehicle despite pending check reports. Ruling that no statutory bar exists, the Court held the RTO must use software provisions to release reports without payment.

What did the court decide?

The respondent ordered to endorse transfer of Goods Carriage Reg. No. KL-45-E-7459 from 1st to 2nd petitioner without insisting on clearing pending check reports.

Binson Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020(L)

¶6

PETITIONERS :

¶7

1 BINSON, 11/507, OLICKAL HOUSE, ASSARIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR.

¶8

2 VIJI THOMAS, MANGAN HOUSE, MULAGUNATHUKKAVU P.O., THRISSUR- 680581.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR, ANKAMALY, PIN-680003.

¶12

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of a Heavy Goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-45-E-7459. He states that the goods carriage permit issued to the above vehicle has expired on 6.8.2020 and immediately thereafter he informed the respondent that he does not intent to renew the permit and sought for its cancellation. Thereafter, on 4.9.2020, the petitioner is stated to have sold the vehicle to the 2nd petitioner and thereafter he has submitted the statutory forms before the respondent for endorsing the transfer from the name of the 1st petitioner to that of the 2nd petitioner in the certificate of registration. However, his request was turned down on the ground that certain check reports were pending. The 2nd petitioner was directed to obtain a clearance certificate from the respondent to the effect that there are no departmental proceedings/check reports pending as against the vehicle. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to endorse the transfer of ownership of the vehicle from the name of the 1st petitioner to the name of the 2nd petitioner without insisting on clearing any pending check reports.

¶18

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

I have heard Sri. Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶21

Sri. P. Deepak relying on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kerala Bus Transport Association and Another v. Transport Commissioner [2013 (1) KLT 440], contended that refusal or renewal of permit or declining the certificate of fitness owing to the pendency of a check report is wholly inequitable. The learned counsel would also refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2554 of 2017 dated 13.12.2017, wherein this Court relying on the dictum laid down by this Court in State of Kerala and

¶22

Another v. C.P.Varghese [ 2017(3) KLT 744], held that the pendency of the check report cannot be used to deny the registered owner his right to transfer the vehicle or in seeking endorsement of the same in the registration certificate.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader while opposing the prayer submitted that vehicles with check reports are blacklisted in the PARIVAHAN application and the concerned RTO will not be in a position to modify the same and make the endorsement.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶25

This Court had occasion to consider the question raised by

¶26

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

the learned Government Pleader in W.P.(C) No. 18170 of 2020. In the said case, check reports were pending against a stage carriage when the application for renewal of permit came up for consideration. His request was refused on the premise that those vehicles with pending check reports would be blacklisted and the respondents will not be in a position to open the PARIVAHAN software and carry out the request for renewal. The petitioner in the said case took steps to implead the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and also the Director-General of NIC to provide clarity as to whether there is any such constraint in the VAHAN software. The Central Govt. Counsel, after getting instructions from the Deputy Director-General, NIC, Kerala State Centre, had filed a statement and on its basis, this Court had observed thus :

¶29

A statement has been filed based on instructions

¶30

given by the Deputy Director-General, NIC, Kerala State Centre. Para 3 to 5 of the statement is extracted below:

¶31

“3. As per Vahan software configuration for Kerala, the

¶32

services of vehicles having pending check reports will be blocked. At present, pending check reports (which are not captured through the newly introduced e-Challan system), can be released by the RTO through the following facilities provided in the Vahan software.

¶33

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

i) By paying the fine amount against the check reports at the RTO counter in which the offence is recorded(or) in the RTO where the vehicle is registered.

¶36

ii) By online payment using the login credentials. The login credentials for online payment can be obtained from the RT office where the offence is recorded or from the office where the vehicle is registered.

¶37

iii) Else RTO can take decision to release the check report of the vehicle without making payments.

¶38

The petitioner is having 6 non-paid check reports in Vahan software and the check reports can be released by any of the options available in the Vahan software as given above.

¶39

By the implementation of e-Challan system in the department, the offender can pay the fine against the offences through the following facilities in the e-Challan system.

¶40

i) Spot payment using Debit/Credit Card through POS devices installed with the e-Challan software.

¶41

ii) Online payment through the citizen’s web portal of e-Challan system.

¶42

iii) Cash payment in RTO counter through the web portal of e-Challan system for RTO officials.

¶43

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

iv) The offences not paying through the above three options can be referred to Virtual Court and payment can be made through the virtual court system.”

¶46

It is apparent from the statement that there are three options

¶47

left to the respondents for releasing the check reports. The 3rd option enables the RTO to take a decision to release the check report of the vehicle without making payments.

¶48

As held by this Court in the precedents cited by the learned counsel, if a check report is pending against the registered owner of the vehicle for having violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the consequence of him being found guilty is imposition of fine. Admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated before any court of law against the registered owner. No provision has been cited before me by the learned Government Pleader which shows that there is any statutory insistence that the check reports are to be cleared before renewing the permit. Since the registered owner has not been found guilty and as he has not chosen to compound the offence, the renewal of permit sought by him could not have been denied by the respondents.

¶49

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the

¶50

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶51

¶52

respondent will not be justified in insisting upon the petitioners to clear the check reports as a condition precedent for considering his application for transfer. The 3rd option provided in the statement of the CGC would enable the RTO to take a decision to release the check report without making payments. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to succeed.

¶53

In the result, this writ petition will stand allowed and the respondent shall endorse the transfer of ownership of the Goods Carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-45-E-7459 from the name of the 1st petitioner to the name of the 2nd petitioner in Ext.P1 certificate of registration without insisting on clearing any pending check reports.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

sru

¶58

WP(C).No.24112 OF 2020

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶62

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION KL-45-E-7459.

¶63

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO KL-45-E-7549. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SURRENDER INTIMATION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF FORM 29 NOTICE AND FORM 30 REPORT DATED 04.09.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/09/2020. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2020 IN WPC NO.19498/2020.

¶64

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

¶65

/TRUE COPY/

¶66

P.A. TO JUDGE

Binson v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binson v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.Kuttimalu Amma Vs State of Kerala

Asha Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kader Mohammed Iqbal, Vs K. Gopalakrishnan

M.P.Aravindhakshan Vs the Land Tribunal, Pattambi

V.N.Prasad Vs the Land Tribunal

T.P.Chandran Vs the Secretary