MAMMU Vs. RTO KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is only rarely that the owner of a vehicle is detected in the act of violating S.33(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, though the general impression appears to be that this evil is prevalent in a large measure. It is true that this evil must be stopped. It is equally true that such stopping cannot be the result of any hasty, or ill conceived action without material to support the conclusion that the section has been violated. Only this morning I dismissed a petition, questioning the suspension of the Registration Certificate for violating the section on the ground that sufficient opportunity had not been granted to the petitioner to establish that the vehicle was not run for hire. The case now before me also appeared at first sight to be one of the same nature. But on a closer scrutiny it appears to me that there has been miscarriage of justice.

(2.) The only material relied on by the 1st respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, in his order Ext. P 3, is the check report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. All that is stated in his order Ex. P 3 is contained in the sentence which reads as follows: "I find no reasons to disbelieve the report of the Checking Officer".

(3.) I perused the checking officer's report and all that he has stated therein is the names of the persons seen inside the car and an assertion that the persons found in the car were being carried for hire. He has not stated in the report that he questioned any of these persons and they stated that they hired the vehicle. No statements have also been recorded from these persons. The petitioner, in his explanation to the charge memo, had stated that he handed over the car to one of the occupants of the car, one Aravindakshan, for the purpose of enabling the mother of the said Aravindakshan to be taken to an eye camp conducted by Dr. Modi. It is said that the said Aravindakshan was a friend and neighbour of the petitioner and the car was given without any consideration being received. This explanation has been brushed aside by the R. T. O. by saying that it cannot be accepted because of the report submitted by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, the details of which I have already referred to.