P M MEERANNAN KUTTY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though there is a lot of suspicion as against the petitioner, still unfortunately It so happens that the petitioner is to succeed for the present on a highly technical point.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Registration No. KLK. 4015 and according to him the said vehicle was checked by the second respondent on 3-11-1961 at Tripunithura. It Is the case of the petitioner that at that time a business partner of his, namely, Shri T. M. Ebrahim Karim, and a relation of his, namely, Shri Alikutty, were travelling in that vehicle as they were expected to use the vehicle in the ordinary manner. But the said vehicle, as I mentioned earlier, was checked by the second respondent and he issued a check report Ex. P-l to the driver of the vehicle to the effect that when the vehicle was stopped and checked the irreguparities noted therein were observed by him and the Irregularity itself is that the car was found conveying Sort T. M. Ebrahim Karim, Hardware Merchant, Moovattuptuhaha and K. M. Alikutty, Merchant, Moovattupuaha, from Moo-yattupuzha to Ernakulam for hire and It is also stated that the vehicle has no permit to ply for hire.

(3.) It Is the grievance of the petitioner that this check report was given to him by his driver on 8-11-1961 and on the same date he sent a communication to the R.T.A., Ernakulam, about the receipt of the said report through his driver on that date. In the said communication, the petitioner after referring to the information obtained from his driver as well as to the vehicle having been stopped and checked on 3-11-1961 states that be Is not able to understand the charge that the vehicle at the time of the check was carrying persons mentioned therein on hire without a permit. The petitioner further says that the said charge Is absolutely without any foundastion and as his driver was illiterate he was asked to put his signature on the report and the latter signed without any knowledge as to the contents. The petitioner farther avers that he has also been informed by him and by his relatives and driver that they had given their names and address without expecting any charge and that the Motw Vehicles Inspector, namely, the second respondent, did not at the time of the check inform anyone of them regarding the charge.