Allowed

Sivasankar G., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021WP(C)/14022/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court quashed a notice issued by the Regional Transport Officer demanding the petitioner's driving licence and warning of cancellation. The Court held Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize such a demand or penalty. The claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 25.07.2018 (Ext.P1) is quashed. Other reliefs sought remain left open for appropriate forum.

Sivasankar G., Vs the State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14022 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIVASANKAR G., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, GOPI SADANAM, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.

¶8

BY ADVS. N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

¶12

4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

5 B.MURALIKRISHNAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W. P. (C) No.14022 of 2019 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2021

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner is the owner of a motor car bearing

¶20

registration No.KL-2/AB 9599. He has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued by the 4^th respondent-Regional Transport Officer.

¶21

Ext.P1 alleges that, the vehicle in question was found having violated traffic signal and speed limits on several occasions (four). The notice alleges that the user of the vehicle is a threat for pedestrians and other users of the road. Ext.P1 further calls for production of the driving licence of the person who drove the vehicle within three days in terms of Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ext.P1 further cautioned

¶22

the petitioner that, if the driving licence as called for is not produced within the time, the petitioner's driving licence and also the registration of the vehicle

¶23

W. P. (C) No.14022 of 2019

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

will be cancelled.

¶26

The writ petition contains various narratives/ personal allegations against the 4^th respondent. He has also been impleaded in his personal capacity as the 5^th respondent. For the purpose of disposal of the present writ petition I do not think it necessary to go into the factual details since, Ext.P1, on the face of it, is unsustainable for reasons more than one.

¶27

Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act only enables to call for information of the driver, including his licence details, which could by reasonable diligence be ascertained by the owner of the vehicle. There is no provision to call for production of licence of the registered owner. Calling upon the petitioner to produce the driving licence of the person who had driven the vehicle at the time of the alleged violations, is evidently beyond authority.

¶28

Secondly, the warning in Ext.P1 that in the

¶29

event of non-production of the licence as demanded, the

¶30

W. P. (C) No.14022 of 2019

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

registration of the petitioner's vehicle and his driving licence will be cancelled, is without any sanction of law. Section 133 does not authorise such a course.

¶33

All these apart, Ext.P1 does not give any

¶34

details of the alleged violations except for a mere statement that there has been violations on four occasions. The time, place and date are conspicuously absent. The petitioner purchased the vehicle only in February, 2015. The check report details in respect of the vehicle, made available by the petitioner, for the period from 04.04.2013 to 30.03.2018 reveals that, after

¶35

the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner there has been only one offence detected and that too of speed violation. All the other occurred much prior to the purchase of the vehicle by the petitioner. To sum up, Ext.P1 only deserves to be quashed.

¶36

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 notice dated 25.07.2018 is quashed. While clarifying

¶37

that I have not considered the merits or otherwise of

¶38

W. P. (C) No.14022 of 2019

¶39

the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition, the

¶40

same are left open to be agitated before appropriate

¶41

forum if the petitioner so chooses.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14022/2019

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY	OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.07.2018
	ISSUED BY PETITIONER	THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE .
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY EXT.P1.	OF THE REPLY DATED 30.07.2018 TO
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY	OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED TO INFORMA RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2018 BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TION ACT TO THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST .
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY EXT. P3.	OF THE REPLY DATED 05.12.2018 TO
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE REPLY DATED 20.12.2018 THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
	OFFICER COMMISSION	FROM THE OFFICE OF TRANSPORT ERATE WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY THE R THIRUVANAN	OF THE REPLY DATED 17.01.2019 THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF EGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 31.01.2019 THE MINIST	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE ER OF TRANSPORTS.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY UNDER THE	OF THE LETTER DATED 02.02.2019 RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY	OF THE REPLY DATED 11.02.2019
	ISSUED BY TRANSPORTS	THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF .

Sivasankar G., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivasankar G., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joshy John Vs State Bank of India

Jose M.B Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Biju Vs State of Kerala

E.T.Abdul Jabbar Vs the Joint Registrar of Co. Operative Societies (G)

Muhammed Rasheed Vs Muhammed Rafi

St.Marys Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala