C D PAUL Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are stage carriage operators operating their respective stage carriages on the route Kodungallore-Guruvayur. On 30.9.1999 the transport employees were on strike and hence the Vehicles could not be operated on the route. The second respondent, the S.I. of Police, Guruvayur, prepared Ext. P3 series check reports and served copies on the petitioners, wherein the petitioners were directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad on 15.10.1999 to face the offences set out in the report. The alleged offence committed by the petitioners was that on 30.9.1999 they did not operate their respective stage carriages and thereby violated the permit conditions. Hence, the petitioners filed this original petition for quashing Ext. P3 series check reports.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to the strike of the transport employees on 30.9.1999 the petitioners could not operate their stage carriages on the respective routes. Ext. P1 notice issued by the Thrissur District Road Transport Employees Union would reveal that on 27.9.1999 the employees of a stage carriage were brutally attacked by some persons and as the assailants were not arrested by the police, the employees were on strike on 30.9.1999, to protest against the approach of the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the S.I. of Police had no jurisdiction to file the check reports directing the petitioners to appear before the Criminal Court on a particular day and that the non operation of the stage carriages on the route on a particular day would not amount to any penal offence triable before a Criminal court. It was further argued that the non operation of a stage carriage on a particular day due to the strike of the employees can never be a violation of the permit condition, warranting a penal action under Chapter XIII of the Motor Vehicles Act though action can be taken under Sec. 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). Sec. 86(1) of the Act empowers the transport authority which granted the permit to cancel or suspend the permit when all or any of the conditions in Clause (a) to (f) of sub sec. 1 of sec. 86 are violated by the operators. Rule 152 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules deals with the consequences on the failure to use the transport vehicle. Rule 152 says that it shall be a condition in every permit that every transport vehicle shall be so maintained to be available for operation on all days of the currency of the permit and the permit shall be liable to be suspended or cancelled for any violation. Chapter XIII of the Act deals with the penal offence. Sec. 177 of the Act deals with the general provision for punishment of offences for violation of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules or notifications made thereunder if no penalty is provided for the offence. Sec. 178 to 192 deal with specific offences and also the punishment for those offences. None of those provisions deal with violation of any permit conditions by the non operation of the vehicle on the route for a day. Sec. 192A of the Act deals with the offence for operating the vehicle without valid permit. A reading of Sec. 192A of the Act would reveal that the operation of a vehicle without permit on a route could be a penal offence punishable by a Criminal Court, but Sec. 192A of the Act also does not take in the non operation of the vehicles on the route covered by the permit as a penal offence. On going through the different provisions under chapter XIII of the Act I do not think that the non operation of the stage carriage on the route covered by the permit by itself would be a penal offence, though proceedings can be initiated by the transport authorities under sec. 86 of the Act. Hence, it cannot be held that the non operation of the stage carriage due to the strike of the employees is a penal offence under the Act committed by the operators and as such Ext. P3 series check reports do not make out any offence triable by a Criminal Court. It was further submitted that the S.I. of Police do not have the authority to direct the petitioner to appear before the JFCM, Chavakkad on a particular day when there was no penal offence committed by the operators. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the unreported decision of this Court in OP No. 598/96, wherein this Court had observed that there is no provision enabling the police officer to issue a notice to appear before a Court of Law on a particular day. I do not fully agree with the above approach. As the non operation of the stage carriages on the route covered by a valid permit was not an offence under the Act and triable before any court, the direction in the check report to appear before the Court was made by the S.I. of Police without any jurisdiction. That be so, I do not think that any purpose would be served in proceeding against the petitioners on the basis of Ext. P3 series of check reports and those are liable to be quashed.