SIYATH K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed challenging show cause notices issued to the petitioners by the Motor Vehicles Department. The petitioners are running pollution testing centres under a licence issued by the Motor Vehicles Department. They have been issued with the impugned Show Cause Notices inter alia on the premise that the centres in question are not conducting tests in conformity with the provisions contained in Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioners contend that the show cause notices are liable to be quashed as they have been issued with malafide intentions and are thus without jurisdiction. The petitioners also have a case that without mentioning anything in the show cause notices issued to them, their access to the PARIVAHAN portal where results of testing are being uploaded, has been blocked, effectively stopping the business of the petitioners from 7/3/2025 onwards.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the show cause notices issued to the petitioners in all three cases are identical in nature. It is submitted that they do not contain any specific allegations. It is submitted that the reason for issuance of the show cause notices is malafide and selected pollution testing centres are targeted only because they are not ready to accede to the illegal demands of the officers. It is submitted that the action of blocking the ID of the petitioners to the PARIVAHAN site without mentioning anything in the show cause notices is also illegal. It is submitted that in such circumstances these writ petitions are to be disposed of directing adjudication of the show cause notices after hearing the petitioners but in the meanwhile directing that the petitioners be permitted to run their testing centres by ensuring that access to the PARIVAHAN site is restored. It is submitted that the show cause notices are liable to be quashed in the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India as they are without jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the notices which are impugned are only show cause notices and it is for the petitioners to appear before the competent authority and submit replies to the show cause notices. It is submitted that the show cause notices will be adjudicated in accordance with the law and all contentions taken by the petitioners can be considered by the competent authority. It is submitted that the test results of the vehicles tested in the centres belonging to the petitioners are showing anomalous results which would indicate that tests were not conducted in terms of the provisions contained in Rules 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It is submitted that for example in respect of the pollution testing centre run by the petitioner in WP (c) No.9531 of 2025, Ext.P2 will show that there is an unreasonably high level of oxygen in the results which would indicate that the probe was not inserted into the exhaust system in a proper manner and as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It is submitted that the perusal of the results would indicate beyond doubt that the testing was not done in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 115 and therefore the officials had no option but to issue show cause notices to the petitioners. It is submitted that access to the PARIVAHAN site had to be blocked as otherwise the petitioners would continue to test vehicles in an improper manner and issue Pollution Under Control (PUC) Certificates. It is submitted that considering the purpose for which PUC certificates are insisted upon, it would not be conducive to public interest if persons who are not conducting the testing centres in a proper manner are permitted to continue issuing PUC certificates and uploading the test results on the PARIVAHAN site. It is submitted that show cause notices will be adjudicated within the shortest possible time.