Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 607 (KER)

Anoop K. A, S/o. Abdul Rahman v. State Of Kerala

2019-07-29

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are owners of goods carriages and also the President and Secretary respectively of All Kerala Truck Owners Association, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to strictly implement Ext.P1 directions issued on 18.08.2015 by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P2 representation dated 08.08.2018 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. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is against plying of goods carriages with national permit throughout Kerala, without valid permits and carrying overload, in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Though most of the inter-state goods carriages are carrying overload, the officials of the Police Department and the Motor Vehicles Department in the State are not taking any measures to prevent such illegal operation. Seeking strict implementation of Ext.P1 directions issued on 18.08.2015 by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, the All Kerala Truck Owners Association moved Ext.P2 representation dated 08.08.2018 before the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner. 3. On 5.12.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions from the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner, submitted that quarterly reports are being submitted before the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety regarding implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P1. The learned Special Government Pleader sought time to file the statement of the 2nd respondent. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner, wherein it has been stated that both goods carriages registered within the State as well as those registered outside the State are being checked by the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department. If any offence is detected, either fine is imposed or licence is forwarded to the competent authority for suspension. The directions issued by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety in Ext.P1 are being implemented and quarterly reports showing effective implementation are being forwarded. The quarterly reports for the quarter ending 31.03.2018 onwards are produced along with the counter affidavit as Exts.R2(a) to R2(e). The directions issued by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety in Ext.P1 are being implemented and quarterly reports showing effective implementation are being forwarded. The quarterly reports for the quarter ending 31.03.2018 onwards are produced along with the counter affidavit as Exts.R2(a) to R2(e). For the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.03.2019, the total number of overloading of goods vehicles detected was 1590, out of which, in 676 cases the driving licence was forwarded to the competent authority for suspension. The details furnished in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit reads thus; “Reports on overloading in goods carriages from 01.01.2018 to 31.03.2019” Period Total number of violation detected Total number of driving licenses forwarded to the competent authority for suspension 01.01.2018-31.03.2018 652 209 01.04.2018-30.06.2018 244 154 01.07.2018-30.09.2018 141 57 01.10.2018-31.12.2018 245 79 01.01.2019-31.03.2019 308 177 Total 1590 676 5. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that inter-state vehicles are being checked in the Check Posts of the Motor Vehicles Department and check reports are being prepared in cases in which overloading is detected. Such vehicles are permitted to move only after unloading the excess load. If goods vehicles having national permits are found conducting intra-state operations, such vehicles are booked for intra-state operations and proportionate tax is being collected. If such vehicles are found overloaded, check reports are being prepared along with recommendation for suspension of driving licence of the driver. According to the 2nd respondent, all the recommendations of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety are considered with utmost seriousness by the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department and check reports are being prepared for all types of offences mentioned in Ext.P1, along with recommendation for suspension of driving licence. In order to strengthen the enforcement works, the Motor Vehicles Department started a new enforcement wing named 'Safe Kerala Project', comprising of 85 Enforcement Squads to curb offences relating to overloading in goods carriages as well as other offences. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. Section 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with application for goods carriage permit; Section 78 deals with consideration of that application; and Section 79 deals with grant of goods carriage permit. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. Section 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with application for goods carriage permit; Section 78 deals with consideration of that application; and Section 79 deals with grant of goods carriage permit. As per sub-section (1) of Section 79, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 77, grant a goods carriage permit to be valid throughout the State or in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 79, no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area or route not specified in the application. As per sub-section (2) of Section 79, the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a goods carriage permit, may grant the permit and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions enumerated in clauses (i) to (ix) thereof. As per clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 79, one of the conditions attached to a goods carriage permit is that the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle used shall not exceed the specified maximum. 8. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with validation of permits for use outside the region in which it is granted. Sub-section (12) of Section 88, which starts with a non obstante clause, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to the rules that may be made by the Central Government under sub-section (14), the appropriate authority may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-state road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of goods carriages and the provisions of Sections 69, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 and Section 89 shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to the grant of national permits. As per Explanation (c), 'national permit' means a permit granted by appropriate authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such contiguous States not being less than four in number, including the State in which the permit is issued, as may be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the application. 9. Rule 86 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with application for national permit; and Rule 87 deals with form, contents and duration of authorisation. Rule 88 deals with age of motor vehicle for the purpose of national permit; and Rule 90 deals with additional conditions for national permit. As per Rule 90, the national permit issued under sub-section (12) of Section 88 shall be subject to the additional conditions enumerated in clauses (1) to (7) thereof. As per clause (6) of Rule 90, the vehicle shall be subject to all local rules or restrictions imposed by a State Government; and as per clause (7), the vehicle shall not pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the same State other than the home State. 10. The provisions under sub-section (12) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that under clause (7) of Rule 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules make it explicitly clear that grant of national permits in respect of goods carriages is for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-state road transport and the goods carriages which are granted national permits shall not pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the same State other than the home State. The expression 'home State' in the context of clause (7) of Rule 90 means 'the State in which the permit is issued', which is clear from the definition of 'national permit' as per Explanation (c) to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, goods carriages which are issued with national permits in States other than State of Kerala shall not be permitted to pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the State of Kerala. 11. Therefore, goods carriages which are issued with national permits in States other than State of Kerala shall not be permitted to pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the State of Kerala. 11. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that, if the Licensing Authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he is using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order disqualifying that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or revoke any such licence. Under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, the Licensing Authority may make such an order if it is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving licence an opportunity of being heard, that he has committed any such act, which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to the objects of the said Act. 12. Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with powers of Licensing Authority to disqualify. As per Rule 21, for the purpose of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the commission of the acts enumerated in clauses (1) to (25) thereof, by the holder of a driving licence shall constitute nuisance or danger to the public. Rule 21 reads thus; “21. Powers of licensing authority to disqualify.-For the purpose of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of section 19, the commission of the following acts by holder of a driving licence shall constitute nuisance or danger to the public, namely:— (1) Theft of motor vehicle. (2) Assault on passengers. (3) Theft of personal effects of passengers. (4) Theft of goods carried in goods carriages. (5) Transport of goods prohibited under any law. (6) Driver, while driving a transport vehicle, engages himself in activity which is likely to disturb his concentration. (7) Abduction of passengers. (8) Carrying overload in goods carriages. (9) Driving at speed exceeding the specified limit. (3) Theft of personal effects of passengers. (4) Theft of goods carried in goods carriages. (5) Transport of goods prohibited under any law. (6) Driver, while driving a transport vehicle, engages himself in activity which is likely to disturb his concentration. (7) Abduction of passengers. (8) Carrying overload in goods carriages. (9) Driving at speed exceeding the specified limit. (10) Carrying persons in goods carriage, either inside the driver’s cabin in excess of its capacity or on the vehicle, whether for hire or not. (11) Failing to comply with the provisions of Section 134. (12) Failure to stop when signaled to do so by any person authorised to do so. (13) Misbehaviour with and showing discourtesy to passengers, intending passengers or consignors and consignees of goods. (14) Smoking while driving public service vehicles. (15) Abandoning vehicle in a public place causing inconvenience to other road users or to passengers in the vehicle. (16) Driving vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. (17) Interfering with any person mounting or preparing to mount upon any other vehicle. (18) Allowing any person to sit or placing things in such a way as to impede the driver from having a clear vision of the road or proper control of the vehicle. (19) Not stopping a stage carriage at approved stopping places for a sufficient period of time in a safe and convenient position upon demand or signal of the conductor or any passenger desiring to alight from the vehicle and unless there is no room in the vehicle, upon demand or signal of any person desiring to becoming a passenger. (20) Loitering or unduly delaying any journey and not proceeding to the destination as near as may be in accordance with the time table pertaining to the vehicle, or, where there is no such time table, with all reasonable despatch. (21) Not driving a contract carriage, in the absence of a reasonable cause, to the destination named by the hirer by the shortest route. (22) The driver of a motor cab not accepting the first offer of hire which may be made to him irrespective of the length of the journey for which such offer is made. (23) The driver of a motor cab demanding or extracting any fare in excess to that to which he is legally entitled or refusing to ply motor cab. (23) The driver of a motor cab demanding or extracting any fare in excess to that to which he is legally entitled or refusing to ply motor cab. (24) Abandoning a transport vehicle as a mark of protest or agitation of any kind or strike in a public place or in any other place in a manner causing obstructions and inconvenience to the public or passengers or other users of such places. (25) Using mobile phone while driving a vehicle.” (underline supplied) 13. In V. Rajendran v. Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur [2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1397] a learned Judge of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) held that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a comprehensive Code, containing all features, which covers grant of permits, usage of the vehicles, description of the vehicles, different kinds of licenses required for different clauses of licence, transfer of ownership, etc., and it empowers the Licensing Authorities to disqualify, suspend or revoke the licenses, depending upon the factors enumerated in the Sections. Restrictions to operate the vehicles are measures, temporarily or permanently, to curtail the rights of the licensees, considering the safety of the road users, including general public. Public interest is the predominant consideration while taking appropriate action by the Licensing Authority or the Court, as the case may be. 14. In V. Rajendran's case, it was held that, while interpreting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the principle of harmonious construction has to be applied to give effect to both the provisions under Sections 19 and 21 of the Act. Under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act the words 'using or has used in the commission of a cognizable offence' are used whereas, in Section 21, the word 'convicted' is used. Section 22 deals with suspension or cancellation of driving licence on conviction. A bare reading of Sections 19 to 22 of the Act, makes it clear that both the Licensing Authorities as well as a Court of competent jurisdiction, which try a person for an offence under the penal laws and/or under the Motor Vehicles Act are empowered to disqualify a person from holding a driving licence or suspend or revoke the same, as the case may be. The power to disqualify a holder of a licence after arriving at the conclusion of guilty of the offence is entirely different than the power conferred on the Licensing Authority when the holder of licence is using or has used the vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence. Reading of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it clear that if a Licensing Authority is satisfied, after giving the holder of a driving license an opportunity of being heard, that he, 'by using or has used a motor vehicle in the commission of cognizable offence', such authority can disqualify the holder of licence, for a specified period, for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence or he can even revoke the licence. Legislature has also clearly demarcated the powers of the Courts and the Licensing Authorities, as to when the licence can be suspended or revoked, when there is commission of a cognizable offence or for conviction of an offence. Sections 19 and 21 deal with the powers of the Licensing Authority. Sections 20 and 22 deal with the powers of the Court. The circumstances under which the holder of the licence can be disqualified for a specified period in sub-section (1) of Section 19 are different from the one in Section 21. Both operate under different spheres. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 speaks of commission of cognizable offence in contra to Section 21, which speaks about previous conviction under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The usage of the words, 'commission of a cognizable offence' and 'conviction', in two different Sections in the enactment and the power to suspend or disqualify, as the case may be, for specific and definite reasons set out in the Sections, have to be given their plain and literal meaning. 15. In Peethambaran T.R. v. Additional Licensing Authority and another [ 2012 (3) KHC 917 ] a learned Judge of this Court held that, wherever the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the holder of driving licence has used a motor vehicle in the commission of a cognizable offence, he is entitled to proceed against the said person under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that initiation of action under the said provision is unwarranted or uncalled for. It cannot, therefore, be said that initiation of action under the said provision is unwarranted or uncalled for. In the said decision, this Court has also relied on the decision of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in V. Rajendran's case (supra). 16. In Peethambaran's case (supra) one of the contentions raised by the petitioner therein was that he is already facing criminal prosecution for various offences alleged against him and when the criminal court is also empowered to suspend or cancel the licence under Sections 20 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the proceedings under Section 19 is unwarranted. Repelling the said contention this Court held that the power of the Licensing Authority and that of the Court, operates in different spheres. The suspension of licence under Section 19 is not dependent upon a conviction of the offender. The same can be invoked immediately upon the commission of the offence where the Licensing Authority is satisfied of the existence of the other conditions stipulated by the provisions. For the above reasons, the impugned action would not constitute double jeopardy as contended. Paragraph 11 of the said decision reads thus; “11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is already facing criminal prosecution for the various offences alleged against him by the Police. The Criminal Court is also empowered to suspend or cancel the petitioner's driving licence under Section 21 and Section 2 of the Act. The said power is to be exercised in appropriate cases by the Court, upon conviction of a person. Therefore, as held by the Madras High Court in V. Rajendran v. The Regional Transport Officer, Thanjavur (supra), the power of the licensing authority and that of the Court, operates in different spheres. The suspension of a licence under Section 19 is not dependent upon a conviction of the offender. The same can be invoked immediately upon commission of the offence where the licensing authority is satisfied of the existence of the other conditions stipulated by the provision. For the above reasons, the impugned action would not constitute double jeopardy as contended.” (underline supplied) 17. In Peethambaran's case (supra) this Court held that the right to earn a livelihood by working as the driver of a transport vehicle is regulated by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. For the above reasons, the impugned action would not constitute double jeopardy as contended.” (underline supplied) 17. In Peethambaran's case (supra) this Court held that the right to earn a livelihood by working as the driver of a transport vehicle is regulated by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. The licence granted to the petitioner does not confer on him a right to drive his vehicle dangerously or carelessly or in such a way as to cause injury, damage or loss of life to another. Any such conduct on his part amounts to violation of the terms and conditions, subject to which he has been licensed to drive a motor vehicle. Therefore, for violation of the terms of the licence, the Licensing Authority is within its powers to suspend and if necessary, revoke the licence that has been granted. When such action is initiated, it is not open to the licensee to contend that such action has deprived him of his means of livelihood. In the said decision, this Court held further that, the device of licensing itself operates by prohibiting a particular act and then permitting the said act subject to the terms of a licence that is issued only to persons who are considered to be competent to be granted such licence. Therefore, in the case of driving also, there is a general prohibition in force, which is relaxed in the case of persons who are granted a licence, by permitting them to drive, provided they abide by the conditions of the licence. Since the Licensing Authority was satisfied that the petitioner therein has violated the terms of the licence, it is certainly within the powers of the said authority to suspend the licence. 18. In Ashish Gosain v. Department of Transport and another [AIR 2016 Delhi 162] a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court held that compounding of an offence under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in any manner, affect the power of the Licensing Authority to suspend the licence under Section 19 of the Act. Since suspension of a licence under Section 19 is not dependent upon the compounding of the offence by the accused, suspension of the licence would not amount to double jeopardy. Since suspension of a licence under Section 19 is not dependent upon the compounding of the offence by the accused, suspension of the licence would not amount to double jeopardy. In the said decision, the Delhi High agreed with the finding of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety that unless strong and urgent measures are taken to deal with over speeding, drunken driving, red light jumping, use of mobile phones while driving, and overloading, the number of accidents and fatalities will continue to remain high. Therefore, it was held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety for suspension of licence for a period of not less than three months under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in cases of driving at excessive speed, overloading, drunken driving and using mobile phone while driving, warrant strict implementation by the Delhi Police as well as the Transport Department. Paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.6 of the said decision read thus; “8.1. India has the dubious distinction of having highest number of road accidents. According to the Road Transport Ministry report of 2014, a total of 4,89,400 road accidents were reported in 2014 resulting in 1,39,671 deaths i.e. an average of one road accident every minute resulting in one death every 4 minutes which is highest in the world. This Court agrees with the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety that unless strong and urgent measures are taken to deal with speeding, drunken driving, red light jumping, the use of mobile phones while driving, and overloading, the number of accidents and fatalities will continue to remain high. 8.2. The directions issued by the Supreme Court Committee on the Road Safety for suspension of licence for a period of not less than three months under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act in cases of driving at excessive speed, overloading, drunken driving and using mobile phone while driving, warrant strict implementation by Delhi Police as well as Transport Department. However, the Delhi Police, as well as the Transport Department, have to follow due process of law which is as under:- 8.2.1. A valid show cause notice giving the particulars of the violation i.e. date, time and place, reference to relevant provisions violated and the directions of the Supreme Court Committee on the Road Safety. 8.2.2. However, the Delhi Police, as well as the Transport Department, have to follow due process of law which is as under:- 8.2.1. A valid show cause notice giving the particulars of the violation i.e. date, time and place, reference to relevant provisions violated and the directions of the Supreme Court Committee on the Road Safety. 8.2.2. An opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8.2.3. The suspension order containing reasons in terms of Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. xxx xxx xxx 8.6. There is no merit in the petitioner's plea that the suspension of a licence after the compounding of the offence would amount to double jeopardy. Section 19 can be invoked where the Licensing Authority is satisfied of the existence of conditions stipulated in Section 19(1)(a) to (h). The compounding of an offence under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in any manner, affect the power of the licensing authority to suspend the licence under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The suspension of a licence under Section 19 is not dependent upon the compounding of the offence by the accused. The suspension of the licence under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act would not, therefore, amount to double jeopardy as contended by the petitioner.” (underline supplied) 19. Therefore, a finding of the competent court that the holder of a driving licence is guilty of an offence is not necessary for the Licensing Authority to invoke its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act to disqualify that person for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or revoke any such licence. 20. In Ajith v. State of Kerala and others [ 2017 (1) KHC 328 ] a learned Judge of this Court held that, while clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act brings acts which are likely to cause danger to the public within the scope of that Section, Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not specify over speed as an act within the scope of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. It was pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader that the case of the petitioner therein would come under clause (9) of Rule 21 of the Rules. Disagreeing with the said stand of the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court observed that, what is provided in the said clause is 'driving at speed exceeding the specified limit'. But, that does not mean that power under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 cannot be invoked for over speeding. Inasmuch as clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act confers power on the Licensing Authority to disqualify a person from holding licence or revoke the licence issued to him, if he commits an act which is likely to cause danger to the public, the specific acts defined in Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules can only be illustrative and not exhaustive, for, all acts which would cause nuisance or danger to the public cannot be contemplated and enumerated. There could be still graver acts of nuisance and danger and it cannot be conceived that the Statute contemplated disqualification from holding licence and revocation of licence only for the trivial acts of nuisance and danger. In other words, the power under subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Act can be invoked even in a case where the act does not fall under any of the clauses in Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, if the act committed by the person concerned would fall under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act. In the said view of the matter, this Court held that the exercise of the power under clause (f) of subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Act, in the case of the petitioner therein, on the ground of over speeding cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 21. The Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a public-spirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, constituted a 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014 -S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [ (2014) 6 SCC 36 ], and the said Committee was notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said decision, after referring to the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with licensing; vehicular fitness; etc. the Apex Court observed that, while improvements in different spheres of law are imminent with passage of time, any change of law has to be preceded by serious debate and consideration of a wide variety of factors all of which takes time. While such changes or amendments can be brought in only upon completion of the necessary exercise, the enforcement of the existing laws would stand on an entirely different footing. Strict and faithful enforcement of all existing laws and norms must be insisted upon not only as an absolute principle of law but also for the huge beneficial effects thereof. Though directions to the States to enforce the existing laws can be issued even in their absence, the Apex Court observed that the matter cannot be allowed to rest merely by issuance of directions. Observance and implementation of the directions to be issued by the Court in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would require continuing scrutiny and therefore, the Apex Court decided to monitor such implementation and to make the States accountable for any inaction or lapse in this regard. The Apex Court impleaded all the States as party respondents and directed the Government of each State to effectively implement and enforce all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of which the States have the authority and obligation to so act under the Constitution, in addition to the tasks specifically alluded to in the subsequent paragraphs of that order dated 22.04.2014. By the said order, the Apex Court constituted a Committee having the composition, as enumerated in paragraphs 35, and the functions, as enumerated in paragraphs 36.4 to 36.8, to undertake the process of monitoring on behalf of the Court, the measures undertaken by the Central Government and the State Governments and the extent of affirmative action on part of the Union and the States, from time to time. 22. 22. The Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, vide letter No.05/2014/CoRS-Part-III dated 18.08.2015, directed the States/Union Territories to take action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, by suspension of driving license for a period of not less than 3 months, for (i) driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit, which would also include red light jumping; (ii) carrying overload in goods carriages and carrying persons in goods carriages; (iii) driving vehicles under the influence of drink and drugs; and (iv) using mobile phone while driving a vehicle. The Committee directed further that, in the case of driving a vehicle under the influence of drinks or drugs, the police should prosecute the offender and seek imprisonment as prescribed under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even for the first offence; and that, the helmet laws be made applicable all over the State/Union Territory both for main riders and the pillion riders. In a case where the law relating to the use of helmet is violated by either the main rider or the pillion rider, they should both be subject to Road Safety Education and Counselling for not less than two hours before imposition of fine as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The States/Union Territories were directed to submit Action Taken Reports at the end of three months starting from 01.09.2015. 23. As stated in letter No.05/2014/CoRS-Part-III dated 18.08.2015, the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety had detailed discussions with the concerned Central Ministries and all the States/Union Territories on the trend of road accidents and fatalities. The data furnished by the States/Union Territories clearly established that the number of fatalities in India continues to be very high, causing serious emotional trauma and economic loss to the families of the deceased and the society. The compensation awarded to the victims by the Insurance Companies also runs into hundreds of crores of rupees every year. The Committee had issued directions to the States/Union Territories to establish institutional arrangements to promote road safety, undertake engineering measures to make roads safe, tighten enforcement together with promoting road safety education and establishing adequate trauma care facilities. The compensation awarded to the victims by the Insurance Companies also runs into hundreds of crores of rupees every year. The Committee had issued directions to the States/Union Territories to establish institutional arrangements to promote road safety, undertake engineering measures to make roads safe, tighten enforcement together with promoting road safety education and establishing adequate trauma care facilities. The Committee, on the basis of detailed analysis of traffic accidents and fatalities, came to the conclusion that unless strong and urgent measures are taken to deal with over speeding, drunken driving, red light jumping, violation of helmet laws and seat belt laws, use of mobile phones while driving, and overloading, the number of accidents and fatalities will continue to remain high. 24. Pursuant to the directions contained in letter No.05/2014/CoRS-Part-III dated 18.08.2015 of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, the Motor Vehicles Department in the State of Kerala launched a special drive 'Operation Suraksha' under the personal supervision of the Joint Transport Commissioner (Enforcement), with an objective to reduce the number of road accidents and to ensure the safety of the road users. The 1st respondent Transport Commissioner, vide letter No.C2/10571/TC/2014 dated 12.07.2017 directed all officers to comply with the Standard Operation Procedures regarding detection of the offences and follow up action. All Regional Transport Officers are directed to sent weekly compliance reports to the office of the 1st respondent, without fail. A monthly data of 'licence suspension' shall be furnished in the proforma enclosed to the letter dated 12.07.2017. All Deputy Transport Commissioners shall ensure that the statements being furnished by the officers under their jurisdiction are accurate and shall furnish a quarterly consolidated statement. 25. In W.P.(C).No.295 of 2012, the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 -S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. In paragraph 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of Lane Driving, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634 (E) dated 23.06.2017, which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision contains various directions issued by the Apex Court. In paragraph 95, the Apex Court has made it clear that, if there is any doubt or clarity is required in implementing those directions, the State Government or Union Territory concerned is at liberty to move the Committee on Road Safety. 26. Regulation 32 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 deals with driving of tractors and goods vehicles. As per sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 32, the number of persons in the driver's cabin of a goods carriage shall not be more than the number of persons specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. As per sub-regulation (3), no person shall be carried in a goods carriage for hire or reward. Regulation 35 deals with projection of loads. As per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 35, the driver shall at all times ensure that loads, including load restraints and loading equipment, in the vehicle are stowed and restrained in such manner that these cannot slip, fall over, roll around, fall off the vehicle or produce avoidable noise, even in an emergency braking situation or if the vehicle swerves suddenly. As per sub-regulation (2), no driver shall drive in any public place a motor vehicle which is loaded in a manner which is likely to cause danger to any person. As per sub-regulation (3), the load or any part thereof, or any other object in the vehicle shall not extend laterally beyond the sides of the body or to the front or to the rear, or exceed in height or weight the limits specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. 27. Regulation 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 deals with registration plates. 27. Regulation 36 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 deals with registration plates. As per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 36, no vehicle shall be driven or parked on a public road without displaying registration plates as prescribed by the Act and the rules made thereunder. As per sub-regulation (2), the registration plates on the front and at the rear of the vehicle shall be clearly visible and legible and no object whatsoever or dirt shall obstruct clear view of the entire registration place. As per sub-regulation (3), no letter, word, figure, picture or symbol other than the registration number shall be displayed or inscribed or written on the registration plates. As per sub-regulation (4), no load or other goods shall be placed on a motor vehicle in such manner as to fully or partly hide the registration plate. 28. In view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran [(2018) 13 SCC 532], the Road Safety Policy and also the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 should be implemented in the State of Kerala with due earnestness and seriousness. As noticed by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, unless strong and urgent measures are taken to deal with over speeding, drunken driving, red light jumping, violation of helmet laws and seat belt laws, use of mobile phones while driving, and overloading, the number of accidents and fatalities will continue to remain high. 29. Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with limits of weight and limitations of use. As per sub-section (3) of Section 113, no person shall drive or use or allow to be driven in any public place any motor vehicle or trailer-(a) the unladen weight of which exceeds the unladen weight specified in the certificate of registration of the vehicle; or (b) the unladen weight of which exceeds the gross vehicle weight specified in the certificate of registration. 30. Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with power to have the vehicle weighed. 30. Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with power to have the vehicle weighed. As per sub-section (1) of Section 114, any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 113, require the driver to convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of 10kms from any point on the forward route or within a distance of 20kms from the destination of the vehicle for weighment; and if on such weighment the vehicle is found to contravene in any respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle or trailer from that place until the laden weight has been reduced or the vehicle or trailer has otherwise been dealt with so that it complies with Section 113 and on receipt of such notice, the driver shall comply with such directions. As per sub-section (2) of Section 113, where the person authorised under sub-section (1) makes the said order in writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit. 31. Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight. As per sub-section (1) of Section 194, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Section 114 or Section 115 [which deals with power to restrict the use of vehicle] shall be punishable with a minimum fine and an additional amount per tonne of excess load, specified in sub-section (1), together with liability to pay charges for off-loading the excess load. As per sub-section (2) of Section 194, any driver of a vehicle who refuses to stop and submit his vehicle to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer authorised in this behalf under Section 114 or removes or causes the removal of the load or part of it prior to weighing shall be punishable with fine as specified in sub-section (2). 32. 32. In Paramjit Bhasin v. Union of India [(2005) 12 SCC 642] the Apex Court, in the context of Sections 113, 114, 115, 194 and 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, held that after compounding the excess load, the same cannot be permitted to be carried in the goods vehicle concerned. Such carriage would amount to infraction of Section 113 of the Act. In the said decision, the Apex Court was dealing with a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioners have questioned the legality of certain notifications purportedly issued by various States like Punjab and Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners contended that by those notifications certain acts outside the ambit of Section 200 of the Act have been covered, though those were committed in clear violation of the mandate of Sections 113 and 114, read with Section 194 of the Act. The notifications have been issued which in effect condone the offence and permit its continuance though legally no such continuation could have been permitted. What is permissible is composition of offences punishable under Section 194 of the Act. It does not, however, permit continuance of the infraction after the compounding. The Apex Court held that Section 200 does not in any way authorise the State Government to permit the excess weight to be carried when on various inspections/detections it is noticed that there is carriage of load beyond the permissible limit. It only gives an opportunity of compounding so that instead of the amounts fixed, lesser amounts can be accepted by the authorised officers. The intention of off-loading the excess load is apparent from a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 194. The liability to pay charge for uploading of the excess load is fixed on one who drives a vehicle or causes a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115. It is to be noted that compounding can be done either before or after the institution of the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences. Any notification which runs counter to the clear import of Section 194 has no validity. It is to be noted that compounding can be done either before or after the institution of the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences. Any notification which runs counter to the clear import of Section 194 has no validity. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners after compounding the excess load, the same cannot be permitted to be carried in the vehicle concerned. Such carriage would amount to infraction of Section 113 of the Act. It is indisputable that the power of compounding vests with the State Government, but the notification issued in that regard cannot authorise continuation of the offence which is permitted to be compounded by payment of the amounts fixed. If permitted to be continued, it would amount to fresh commission of the offence for which the compounding was done. 33. As already noticed, grant of national permits in respect of goods carriages under sub-section (12) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is for the purpose of encouraging long distance clause (7) of Rule 90, goods carriages which are issued with national permits in States other than State of Kerala shall not be permitted to pick up or set down goods between two points in the State of Kerala. 34. In view of the provisions under clause (8) of Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, carrying overload in goods section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As held in V. Rajendran's case and Peethambaran's case referred to supra, the power of the Licensing Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 19 for making an order disqualifying the holder of driving licence for a specified period for holding or obtaining any driving licence to drive all or any classes or descriptions of vehicles specified in the licence; or revoke any such licence, is not dependent upon a conviction of the offender. The said power can be invoked immediately upon the commission of the offence, where the Licensing Authority is satisfied of the existence of the conditions stipulated in that provision. As held in Ashish Gosain's case (supra), compounding of an offence under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in any manner, affect the power of the Licensing Authority in exercising its power under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act. 35. As held in Ashish Gosain's case (supra), compounding of an offence under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, in any manner, affect the power of the Licensing Authority in exercising its power under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act. 35. On the basis of detailed analysis of traffic accidents and fatalities, the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety in Ext.P1 directions concluded that unless strong and urgent measures are taken to deal with over speeding, drunken driving, red light jumping, violation of helmet laws and seat belt laws, use of mobile phones while driving, and overloading, the number of accidents and fatalities will continue to remain high. Therefore, the Committee directed the States/Union Territories to take action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, by suspension of driving license for a period of not less than 3 months, for (i) driving at a speed exceeding the specified limit, which would also include red light jumping; (ii) carrying overload in goods carriages and carrying persons in goods carriages; (iii) driving vehicles under the influence of drink and drugs; and (iv) using mobile phone while driving a vehicle. 36. The quarterly report on implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety for the quarter ending 31.03.2018 onwards, produced as Exts.R2(a) to R2(e), along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner, would show that for the quarter ending 31.03.2018, out of 652 cases of overloading in goods carriages, driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was forwarded to the competent authority for suspension only in 209 cases. For the quarter ending 30.06.2018, out of 244 only 154; for the quarter ending 30.09.2018, out of 141 only 57; for the quarter ending 31.12.2018, out of 245 only 79; and for the quarter ending 31.03.2019, out of 177 only 34. 37. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, 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-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The compounding, if any, of the offence under Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act (either before or after the institution of any prosecution) shall not in any manner affect the proceedings initiated by the Licensing Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the said Act. 38. As held by the Apex Court in Paramjit Bhasin's case (supra), compounding can be done either before or after the institution of the prosecution in respect of the enumerated offences in Section 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, after compounding an offence punishable under Section 194 of the Act inter-state road transport. In view of the prohibition contained in carriages shall constitute an act, which is likely to cause nuisance or danger to the public, for the purpose of clause (f) of sub relating to excess load, that excess load cannot be permitted to be carried in the vehicle concerned. Such carriage would amount to infraction of Section 113 of the Act. The intention of uploading the excess load is apparent from a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 194. The liability to pay charge for uploading of the excess load is fixed on one who drives a vehicle or causes a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Sections 113, 114 and 115 of the Act. 39. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps, through duly authorised police officers and the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, including respondents 3 and 4, 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 the decisions referred to supra, 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-section (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 40. Stern action shall be taken against the use of goods carriages and trailers in contravention of the provisions of Section 113 or Section 114 or Section 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. Considering the increase in the number of 'hit and run' 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.