Sadasivan Achary vs State of Kerala

K.K. Mathew, J.—This writ application is to quash Ex. P3 and P5 orders passed by the R.T.O. the 3rd respondent and the District Collector, the 2nd respondent, respectively. The R.T.O. by Ex. P3 order suspended the registration of the vehicle K.L.A. 2023 for four months for the reason that the petitioner, the registered owner, hired it out on 15-5-1967 without taking a taxi permit for the vehicle. It is alleged that the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector checked the vehicle on that day, and found that one Syed Mohammed and his family were travelling in the car paying the hire. It was on the basis of the check report that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Ex. P1 notice dated 26-5-1967. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that Syed Mohammed and his family were his neighbours and family friends, and that he allowed them to use the car without payment of hire. R.T.O. passed Ex. P3 on the basis that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner. This is a mistake committed by him. The petitioner filed an appeal. In the appeal the District Collector found on the basis of the check report that Syed Mohammed and his family were travelling in the car paying the hire, and that the check report can be relied upon since the driver of the car as the owner''s agent has signed the report.

A copy of the check report was not furnished to the petitioner, nor was he made aware of the contents of it. Although it would appear that the driver of the car signed the report, I think, it was improper to have used the report in evidence against the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to have his say, if any against the report. I think, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to make an effective representation. (See the decision in T.V. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Regional Transport Officer, Nilgiris and Another, and Meerannan Kutty v. R.T. Officer) 1962 KLT 202 Sec. 33 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides as follows:

If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction--

(a) is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the pubic, or that it fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter V or of the rules made thereunder, or

(b) has been, or is being used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such,

the authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle--

To make opportunity of being heard an effective one it was unnecessary that a copy of the check report should have been furnished to the petitioner. I cannot accept the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the details of the check report were disclosed to the petitioner as there was a statement in the charge that Syed Mohammed and his family were travelling in the car for hire, and therefore, the petitioner had effective opportunity to have his say against the check report-Whether the driver of the car signed the report, and if so, under what circumstances and in what capacity, are matters on which the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to have his say. I think, the authorities below went wrong in proceeding on the basis of the check report alone without giving the petitioner an opportunity to controvert the statements in it.

I quash Exs. P3 and P5 and allow the writ petition. No costs.