Muhammed Iqbal.C.K. Vs. the Transport Commissioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1118389
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-07-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
AppellantMuhammed Iqbal.C.K.
RespondentThe Transport Commissioner
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice k.vinod chandran tuesday, the7h day of january201417th pousha, 1935 wp(c).no. 30572 of 2013 (v) ---------------------------- petitioner(s)/petitioner: ------------------------------------------------ muhammed iqbal.c.k., s/o.hydros haji, chalattil kalladihodi house p.o.melmuri, malappuram. by adv. sri.saju j.vallyara respondent(s)/respondents: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. the transport commissioner, transport bhavan, vazhuthakad thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.2. the secretary to government, department of transports, governemtn of kerala thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.3. the secretary to government ministry of surface transports, government of india new delhi - 110 001.4. the registering authority (regional transport officer), malappuram pin - 676 505. by adv. government pleader smt. r. rema by sri.p.parameswaran nair,asg of india this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on0701-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 30572 of 2013 (v) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------------------- exhibit p1 : photocopy of the sale certificate issued by m/s.sakthi automobiles to the petitioner dated2910.2013 exhibit p2 : photocopy of the temporary registration dated2910.2013 exhibit p3 : photocopy of the communication vide no.c1/6294/tc/2013 dated2806.2013 of the1t respondent exhibit p4 : photocopy of the request dated0512.2013 submitted by the petitioner before the1t respondent exhibit p5 : photocopy of the notification dated2812.2013 exhibit p6 : photocopy of the order in w.p(c) no.27684/2013-i dated1911.2013 true copy p.a to judge k.vinod chandran, j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.p.(c).no.30572 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated 7th january, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - judgment the petitioner challenges ext.p5 notification by which the central motor vehicles (accreditation of bus body building) order, 2007 was superseded and fresh orders were issued termed as central motor vehicles (accreditation of body buildings) amendment order 2012. essentially the said order made a condition of building bodies, over the chassis purchased from manufacturers, by accredited workshops, which accreditation was to be granted by the accreditation agency appointed by the central government. the contention of the petitioner was that in fact, a similar order was there earlier in 2007 and the same was not brought into force in the state of kerala. the vehicles with body built on chassis; in the state of kerala, were produced for registration and were verified as to the road worthiness and safety by the registering authority and registration used to be granted on satisfaction of the registering authority. however, the implementation of the order without permitting the purchasers of chassis, a breathing time, with respect to vehicles they had already wp(c).30572/13 2 entrusted to workshops for body building, is illegal and arbitrary, is the contention.2. the learned government pleader, however, would submit that in fact, twice time was granted for implementation of ext.p5 notification. as per the notification the order was to come into force on 01.04.2013. however, the registering authority in the state of kerala had granted time up to 30.9.2013. any body, built by un-accredited workshops ought to have been presented for registration before then, is the contention.3. the petitioner, however, would contend that he purchased the chassis in october, 2013 and entrusted the vehicle to a workshop for building a body, without being aware of the notification. the same was completed and presented for registration in december 2013. but relying on ext.p5 notification and the extended time granted, the registering authority refused to register the vehicle for reason only of the body having not been built in an accredited workshop. the petitioner also contends that in similar instances the registering authority has condoned the delay as evident from ext.p4 and hence alleges discrimination.4. when the above writ petition came up for admission, an wp(c).30572/13 3 interim order was issued directing the registering authority to verify as to whether the vehicle and the body built on it satisfies the standards specified in the kerala motor vehicles act , 1988, the central motor vehicles rules and the kerala motor vehicle rules and whether the vehicle could be safely used on roads after inspection. the learned government pleader has now filed the report of the registering authority finding that the vehicle is road- worthy and also conforms to the safety standards prescribed by the act and rules.5. in such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the registering authority to register the vehicle de hors ext.p5 notification since the body built on the chassis is found to satisfy the norms prescribed by the act and rules. the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. the parties are left to suffer their costs. sd/- k.vinod chandran, judge mrcs
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE7H DAY OF JANUARY201417TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 30572 of 2013 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED IQBAL.C.K., S/O.HYDROS HAJI, CHALATTIL KALLADIHODI HOUSE P.O.MELMURI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS, GOVERNEMTN OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI - 110 001.

4. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY (REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER), MALAPPURAM PIN - 676 505. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. REMA BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0701-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30572 of 2013 (V) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.SAKTHI AUTOMOBILES TO THE PETITIONER DATED2910.2013 EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION DATED2910.2013 EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.C1/6294/TC/2013 DATED2806.2013 OF THE1T RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED0512.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED2812.2013 EXHIBIT P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

IN W.P(C) NO.27684/2013-I DATED1911.2013 TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.30572 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 7th January, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 notification by which the Central Motor Vehicles (Accreditation of Bus Body Building) Order, 2007 was superseded and fresh orders were issued termed as Central Motor Vehicles (Accreditation of Body Buildings) Amendment Order 2012. Essentially the said order made a condition of building bodies, over the chassis purchased from manufacturers, by accredited workshops, which accreditation was to be granted by the Accreditation Agency appointed by the Central Government. The contention of the petitioner was that in fact, a similar order was there earlier in 2007 and the same was not brought into force in the State of Kerala. The vehicles with body built on chassis; in the State of Kerala, were produced for registration and were verified as to the road worthiness and safety by the registering authority and registration used to be granted on satisfaction of the registering authority. However, the implementation of the Order without permitting the purchasers of chassis, a breathing time, with respect to vehicles they had already WP(C).30572/13 2 entrusted to workshops for body building, is illegal and arbitrary, is the contention.

2. The learned Government Pleader, however, would submit that in fact, twice time was granted for implementation of Ext.P5 notification. As per the notification the order was to come into force on 01.04.2013. However, the registering authority in the State of Kerala had granted time up to 30.9.2013. Any body, built by un-accredited workshops ought to have been presented for registration before then, is the contention.

3. The petitioner, however, would contend that he purchased the chassis in October, 2013 and entrusted the vehicle to a workshop for building a body, without being aware of the notification. The same was completed and presented for registration in December 2013. But relying on Ext.P5 notification and the extended time granted, the registering authority refused to register the vehicle for reason only of the body having not been built in an accredited workshop. The petitioner also contends that in similar instances the registering authority has condoned the delay as evident from Ext.P4 and hence alleges discrimination.

4. When the above writ petition came up for admission, an WP(C).30572/13 3 interim order was issued directing the registering authority to verify as to whether the vehicle and the body built on it satisfies the standards specified in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules and whether the vehicle could be safely used on roads after inspection. The learned Government Pleader has now filed the report of the registering authority finding that the vehicle is road- worthy and also conforms to the safety standards prescribed by the Act and Rules.

5. In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to the registering authority to register the vehicle de hors Ext.P5 notification since the body built on the chassis is found to satisfy the norms prescribed by the Act and Rules. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. The parties are left to suffer their costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs