Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Date of Decision:
31. 10.2013 WP(C) No.982 of 2013; CM Nos.1873 of 2013 & 12753 of 2013 WALJIS TRAVELS (I) PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Jagat Rana, Adv. versus GOVT. (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Chander, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J.
(Oral) A vehicle of the petitioner-Company having registration No.DL1VA9820being driven by one Mr. Hira Singh was prosecuted for the following offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‗MV Act‘): ―66/192A – Using Vehicle without Permit. 100(2)/177 – Penalty for contravention of regulation. 6/177 – 138/37/177 – violation of govt rules, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with following allegations The vehicle driven bythe driver was coming from Lado Sarai to P.T.S. On checking, black glasses were found, without helpline number, Conductor number, driver number and owner number, thus violated the permit conditions.‖ The driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty to the aforesaid charges and was fined Rs.5,200/- by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
2. Vide show cause notice dated 24.12.2012, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic, South-East District, alleging that the petitioner had committed traffic/permit violation by plying the vehicle with tinted glasses and the conductor without having a driving licence, required it to show cause why the permit for the aforesaid vehicle should not be suspended for a period of thirty (30) days.
3. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice vide reply dated 5.2.2013 stating therein that they had already paid the fine for the offences stated in the notice. Vide impugned order dated 5.2.2013, the permit of the aforesaid vehicle was suspended for a period of twenty (20) days with immediate effect and it was directed that the vehicle be parked in the HKC (Hauz Khas Circle) during suspension which shall be reckoned from the date of parking of the vehicle at the said Circle.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither plying the vehicle with tinted glasses nor plying it without the conductor having the driving licence constitutes a valid ground for suspension of the permit and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Section 86 of the MV Act to the extent it is relevant reads as under: ―86. Cancellation and suspension of permits.-. (1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit— (a) on the breach of any condition specified in section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or (b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or (d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or (e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purposes for which the permit was granted, or (f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country: Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation.‖ 5. Section 84 of the MV Act stipulates the general conditions attached to all the permits and reads as under: ―84. General conditions attaching to all permits. The following shall be conditions of every permit— (a) that the vehicle to which the permit relates carries valid certificate of fitness issued under section 56 and is at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder; (b) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven at a speed exceeding the speed permitted under this Act; (c) that any prohibition or restriction imposed and any fares or freight fixed by notification made under section 67 are observed in connection with the vehicle to which the permit relates; (d) that the vehicle to which the permit relates is not driven in contravention of the provisions of section 5 or section 113; (e) that the provisions of this Act limiting the hours of work of drivers are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates; (f) that the provisions of Chapters X, XI and XII so far as they apply to the holder of the permit are observed; and (g) that the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which the permit relates on the exterior of the body of that vehicle on both sides thereof in a colour or colours vividly contrasting to the colour of the vehicle centered as high as practicable below the window line in bold letters.‖ 6. It would, thus, be seen that neither plying a vehicle with tinted glasses nor plying it without the conductor of the vehicle having a driving licence with him constitutes violation of the general conditions attached to all the permits. This is also not the case of the respondent that any special condition was attached to the permit of the petitioner requiring it not to ply the vehicle with tinted glasses or it without the conductor of the bus having a driving licence with him. Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid two charges could not have been a ground for suspending the permit.
7. As noted earlier, one of the general conditions attached to all the permits that the name and address of the operator shall be painted or otherwise firmly affixed to every vehicle to which it relates, on the exterior on both sides thereof. A perusal of the writ petition would show that one of the allegations on which the driver of the vehicle was prosecuted was that the vehicle was being plied without permit number, conductor‘s number, driver‘s number and owner‘s number. However, there is no requirement under Section 84 (g) of the MV Act to display the telephone number of the owner, driver or conductor of the vehicle. The requirement is to display the name and address of the operator and this is not the case of the respondent that the name or address of the operator of the vehicle was not found displayed/painted on the vehicle. Therefore, ground under Section 84 (g) of the MV Act is also not made out.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it is evident that no ground for suspending the permit of the vehicle of the petitioner-Company is made out. The impugned order dated 5.2.2013 is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs. OCTOBER31 2013 b’nesh V.K. JAIN, J.