Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was delivering the judgment in a writ petition seeking protection against harassment by the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration number had approached the High Court after he was allegedly asked over the telephone to appear before the Motor Vehicles Department along with his driving licence, registration certificate and other vehicle-related documents. He sought protection against being harassed, intimidated or summoned without legal authority.

The Regional Transport Officer filed a statement before the Court, and it was submitted that credible information concerning the unsafe or improper use of a motor vehicle required verification through a preliminary enquiry. It was further submitted that an individual who wished to remain anonymous had submitted a written complaint alleging that the petitioner's vehicle was being driven in a rash and dangerous manner, causing obstruction and inconvenience to other road users.

The Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned subsequently contacted the petitioner by telephone and asked him to appear with the relevant documents. The authorities maintained that this was merely a preliminary and non-coercive administrative step and that no coercive proceedings had been initiated against him. The complainant's identity was withheld at the preliminary stage on grounds of confidentiality.

The Court however, found that the respondents could not identify any provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowering the Regional Transport Officer or Motor Vehicle Inspector to investigate a complaint alleging rash or dangerous driving.

It was further observed that where such allegations constitute an offence punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, it is the police who are responsible for investigating the offence. The Court further noted that offences under Chapter XIII of the Motor Vehicles Act could be investigated only by the police and that too after registration of a first information report.

“The offences specified in Chapter XIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can only be investigated by the police, that too, after a first information report. As far as Section 19 and Section 53 of MV Act are concerned, those proceedings cannot be initiated on the basis of any hidden complaint or without a proper notice.” Court observed.

The Court also clarified that proceedings under Sections 19 and 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be initiated on the basis of a hidden complaint or without issuing proper notice.

The Court took exception to the withholding of both the complainant's identity and the complaint itself.

“The identity and complaint are both apparently withheld to ensure confidentiality. This Court cannot countenance such a contention. Anonymity for a complainant or hiding a complaint are matters unknown to law. Such an approach amounts to arbitrariness.” Court held.

The Court directed the second respondent, or anyone acting under him, not to harass, intimidate or summon the petitioner except otherwise than in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Case Title: Nirmal Mathew Babu v State of Kerala and Anr.

Case No: WP(C) 20898/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 478

Counsel for Petitioner: Baby Nandhini K

Counsel for Respondents: Anirudh Kadavil