LEELAVATHI G NAIK Vs. ASST SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. MEX 4997. That vehicle is a motor car. Previously it was owned by her husband Ganapathi Naik, who is the second petitioner. During the ownership of the husband, the second petitioner, the vehicle was checked and found carrying passengers for hire and reward for which he did not have a peimit. In the result, action was taken by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur in accordance with Section 33(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The explanation of the petitioner was that he did not commit the offence ; that only his wife and servant had travelled on the relevant day when the Sub-Inspector checked the same and the driver pleaded guilty before the Magistrate of the charge of driving the vehicle without a valid permit carrying passengers for hire and reward only to avoid complications. That explanation was rejected and the first respondent, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur, suspended the registration certificate of the vehicle in question for the period between 12- 3-1979 and 11-7-1979 directing that the petitioner should surrender the registration certificate to him on or before 12-3-1979 and also intimate the place where the vehicle would be garaged during the period of suspension.

(2.) The first petitioner filed an appeal as in the meanwhile she become the registered owner of the vehicle. Her case was that it was the previous owner who had committed the offence and not she and therefore the appeal should be allowed. That explanation for good reason was rejected and the order of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, the first respondent, was confirmed by the second respondent, the Commissioner for Transport in Karnataka, Bangalore. That was done on 27-6-1979.

(3.) In the meanwhile, there is no evidence of the petitioner having surrendered the registration certificate nor having intimsted the place where the vehicle was garaged during the period of suspension.