Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 209 (KER)

N. E. Abdul Azeez v. Regional Transport Authority

2009-02-27

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

body2009
Judgment:- Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is a stage carriage operator, operating the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-F/BF-6074 on the route Aluva-Fort Kochi. The driver of the vehicle was one Mr.Biju K.Thomas. The said vehicle knocked down two lady teachers, who were riding a two wheeler. One of the teachers succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. Normally, when a person is killed in an accident, crime under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) is registered. But, in this case, the appellants driver was accused of the offence under Section 304 of the I.P.C., that is, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The driver was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Later, he was released on bail by the Sessions Court, as per Ext.P4 order dated 8.2007. The accident took place on 27.2007. The learned Sessions Judge granted bail subject to conditions. One of the conditions was that he shall not drive a stage carriage. But, the appellant engaged the said driver to ply his aforementioned vehicle and the police arrested him on 9.2007, for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the I.P.C. It appears, the driver has pleaded guilty to the charges. Based on the second incident, the appellant was served with Ext.P3 show cause notice proposing to cancel his permit, invoking the power of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 86 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant submitted Ext.P5 reply. After considering the reply, the R.T.A. by Ext.P6 decision dated 30.9.2008, cancelled his permit. The appellant moved the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing M.V.A.A. No.603/2008, challenging Ext.P6. The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by Ext.P7 order. Challenging Exts.P6 and P7, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with those orders and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was unaware of the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail to his driver that he should not drive any stage carriage. There was no such endorsement in the licence of his driver. Even now, there is no endorsement, it is submitted. 3. Hence, this appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was unaware of the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail to his driver that he should not drive any stage carriage. There was no such endorsement in the licence of his driver. Even now, there is no endorsement, it is submitted. 3. Rule 153 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules lays down that it shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle, that the holder thereof:- (1) shall ensure that the vehicle is driven only by a driver duly authorised in this behalf by the Act and the rules issued there under. (2) shall exercise effective supervision over the work of all his employees to ensure operation of the vehicle in conformity with the Act and the rules issued there under. (3) shall be responsible for the conduct of the driver and other employees; and (4) shall not usethe vehicle or cause or allow it to be used in the commission of any offence under the Indian Penal Code or any local or special law or any statutory control order, for the time being in force." 4. The above quoted provision would show that the appellant is responsible for the conduct of his driver. If the vehicle is used for the commission of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, that will amount to violation of the permit conditions. The appellants vehicle has already been used to commit an offence under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and still later, it was used for committing another offence, under Section 279 of the I.P.C. So, there is admitted violation of the permit conditions from the part of the appellant. The power of the R.T.A., to cancel the permit granted by it, is contained in Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows: 86. The power of the R.T.A., to cancel the permit granted by it, is contained in Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows: 86. Cancellation and suspension of permits:- (1) The transport authority which granted a permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit - (a) on the breach of any condition specified in Section 84 or of any condition contained in the permit, or (b) if the holder of the permit uses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any manner not authorised by the permit, or (c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit, or (d) if the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or misrepresentation, or (e) if the holder of the goods carriage permit, fails without reasonable cause, to use the vehicle for the purpose for which the permit was granted, or (f) if the holder of the permit acquires the citizenship of any foreign country: Provided that no permit shall be suspended or cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to the holder of the permit to furnish his explanation." 5. Going by the above provision, violation of the permit conditions by the permit holder shall entail cancellation of the permit. So, the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the appellant regarding the condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, while granting bail to his driver, restraining him from driving a stage carriage, is totally irrelevant. Even assuming, there was no such condition and if the driver was authorised to drive the stage carriage, even then, its permit was liable to be cancelled, as it was used twice for the commission of cognizable offences punishable under the I.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.