23 Jun 2023 5:25 AM GMT
A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court by a CRPF personnel against speeding challans issued to him allegedly beyond the statutory time limit.The Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias on Friday admitted the matter and directed the Government Pleader to get instructions.The petitioner in this case was issued two e-challans on March 5, 2023, for violation of permissible speed limit...
A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court by a CRPF personnel against speeding challans issued to him allegedly beyond the statutory time limit.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias on Friday admitted the matter and directed the Government Pleader to get instructions.
The petitioner in this case was issued two e-challans on March 5, 2023, for violation of permissible speed limit by his motor vehicle on two instances on September 28, 2022, identified by an AI Camera. Upon verification, it was discovered that it was the petitioner's son who had driven the vehicle on the said date.
It is the petitioner's case that the two e-Challans were issued in gross violation of the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter, 'CMVR'). He averred that as per Rule 167A (9) of CMVR, notice of the offence ought to be issued within 15 days of the occurrence of the offence, however, in the present case, the notice was received by the Petitioner only after almost 6 months of the alleged speed violation.
It was further submitted that as per Rule 167A(6)(v), the challan must be accompanied with certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was also not complied with herein. The petitioner thus alleged that the said notices were "coated with discrepancies".
The petitioner averred that on noticing the discrepancies, he made a representation before the Transport Commissioner. He also sought to bring their attention to the lack of signages as well as safety measures on the National Highway stretch. Petitioner says RTO has admitted to the delay in sending the notices, attributable to the change of software and data updation to parivahan seva. As regards the road safety markings and signages however, the petitioner averred that RTO attempted to state that the same came within the purview of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), and not the Motor Vehicles Department (MVD).
"It is submitted that though, statutorily it may be the responsibility of the NHAI, the 1st Respondent (RTO) cannot walk away from its moral and ethical responsibility in seeing to it that the NHAI or the concerned authorities are notified about the lack of safety measures and signages on such a stretch of road, where chances of speeding is high and consequently higher the chances of accidents. And, furthermore, the 1st Respondent and its parent authorities, the 2nd Respondent (Transport Commissioner) and 3rd Respondent (State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of Transport), cannot merely wash of its hands from installing and implementing the various safety measures as envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act and the various rules framed thereunder. This is more so when the electronic enforcement speed cameras are installed by the 2nd Respondent and is being used by it as a milking tool for generating revenue," the plea states.
The petitioner has thus filed the plea seeking the e-challans to be quashed. It further seeks a direction to be issued to the Transport Commissioner, the State, and the Central authorities to maintain adequate warning signs as contemplated under the Rules.
The plea has been moved through Advocates Rajesh Vijayendran, Asok Chacko Thomas, and Sidhiqul Akbar K.A.
Case Title: Anil Kumar R. v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) & Ors.