ANOOP K.A. Vs. K.R. JYOTHYLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the President and Secretary respectively of All Kerala Truck Owners Association, have filed this Contempt Case (Civil) invoking the provisions under Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, to issue notice to the respondents herein, frame charges against them, proceed against them, and punish them for wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dtd. 29/7/2019 in W.P.(C)No.39574 of 2018 [Anoop K.A. and another v. State of Kerala and others - 2019 (5) KHC 414].

(2.) The petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.39574 of 2018 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to strictly implement Ext.P1 directions issued on 18/8/2015 by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety. They have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P2 representation made before the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner and take necessary action against goods carriages carrying overload, as per the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

(3.) In Anoop K.A. [2019 (5) KHC 414] this Court directed respondents 1 and 2, namely, the State of Kerala and the Transport Commissioner, Kerala, to take necessary steps, through duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, including respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone-II, Ernakulam and the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, to ensure strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy and also the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 in the State of Kerala, as directed by the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In view of the law laid down in V. Rajendran v. Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur [2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1397], Peethambaran T.R. v. Additional Licensing Authority and another [2012 (3) KHC 917], Ashish Gosain v. Department of Transport and another [AIR 2016 Delhi 162], Ajith v. State of Kerala and others [2017 (1) KHC 328], S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2014) 6 SCC 36], S. Rajaseekaran (2) v. Union of India[(2018) 13 SCC 532], and Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India [(2005) 12 SCC 642], and also the directions issued by the Supreme Committee on Road Safety in Ext.P1, in cases in which offences like driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit; carrying overload in goods carriages; driving vehicles under the influence of drinks and drugs; using mobile phone while driving a vehicle; etc. are detected, the duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall forthwith forward the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle to the Licensing Authority, for initiating proceedings under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court ordered that, stern action shall be taken against the use of goods carriages and trailers in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 113 or Sec. 114 or Sec. 115 [which deals with power to restrict the use of vehicle] of the Motor Vehicles Act or clause (7) of Rule 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and also for carrying persons in contravention of sub-regulations (2) and (3) of Regulation 32; for carrying load in contravention of sub-regulations (1) and (2) of Regulation 35 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. This Court further ordered that, considering the increase in the number of'hit and run1 accidents reported every year, stern action shall be taken against the use of motor vehicles, including goods carriages and trailers, in contravention of the provisions under Regulation 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, i.e., against the use of motor vehicles on public roads without displaying the registration plates as prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder.