Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 583 (KER)

SIYATH. K v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-03-13

GOPINATH P.

body2025
JUDGMENT : 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 07.03.2025 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. 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. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with the show cause notices issued to them. This Court will be loath to interfere with any proceedings at the stage of a show cause notice. Authorities for this proposition are many. This Court will be loath to interfere with any proceedings at the stage of a show cause notice. Authorities for this proposition are many. The principle was succinctly stated in Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories (2007) 13 SCC 270 . It was held:- “31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025 of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out.” The allegations of malafide are feeble and do not compel me to hold that show-cause notices are the result of malice. A perusal of Ext.P2 in WPC No.9531/2025 indicates that the level of oxygen measured in the vehicles tested at the centre which is the subject matter of the said writ petition shows a higher level of oxygen which in turn indicates that the testing was not conducted properly by inserting the probe into the exhaust system in the manner as contemplated by the Rule 115 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. While it will not be proper for this court to make a final finding regarding the above question (as the proceedings are only at the stage of show cause notice), the above observation is for considering whether the petitioners have made out any prima facie case for grant of relief permitting them to continue with the operation of testing centres pending the adjudication of the show cause notices. I have held in the Judgment in WP(c) No.3204/2024 (while considering the power of the authorities to suspend a licence under the provisions of the Abkari Act and the rules framed thereunder), that the power of suspension is given to the authorities to take urgent action wherever such action is required to uphold public interest and that such power of suspension cannot be preceded by notice and hearing. In the facts of the present case, it is true that the authorities have not indicated in the show cause notices issued to the petitioners that their access to the PARIVAHAN site is blocked or suspended. While it would have been more appropriate for the authorities to indicate so in the show cause notices, the fact that the same has not been indicated or set out in the show cause notices issued to the petitioners does not lead to the conclusion that the exercise of such powers by the authorities is W.P.(C) Nos.9531, 9536 and 9539 of 2025 illegal or arbitrary. The access has been blocked on account of the fact that if the petitioners are permitted to continue testing vehicles even after noticing irregularities, the same will be against the public interest. 5. Therefore, I find no ground made out for the grant of reliefs sought for in the writ petitions. Therefore, they will stand dismissed. However, considering the fact that the petitioners are earning a living by running the pollution testing centres, I deem it appropriate to direct that show cause notices issued to the petitioners in each of the cases shall be finally adjudicated after affording to them an opportunity of being heard within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall appear before the competent authority either by themselves or by authorized representative at 11 a.m. on 18.03.2025. 6. Petitioners shall appear before the competent authority either by themselves or by authorized representative at 11 a.m. on 18.03.2025. 6. Before parting this case, I must observe that I am of the opinion that the Transport Commissioner, Kerala must consider whether show cause notices of the nature issued to the petitioners have to be issued henceforth after affixing reference number/serial number, etc so that there is no allegation that testing centres are being arbitrarily picked up for the purposes of issuance of show cause notices and show cause notices issued to several testing centres have been dropped at a later point of time. Writ petitions are ordered accordingly.