IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 1309 of 2007(S)
1. RAM MOHAN, 14, KAIRALI NAGAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHAI M PAIKADAY(SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN
Dated :23/01/2007
O R D E R
V.K.Bali,C.J. & M.Ramachandran,J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1309 of 2007-S
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
V.K.Bali,C.J.
Ram Mohan, who states himself to be a public spirited
person and social activist associated with various service
organisations, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India by way of public interest litigation seeking
the following reliefs:
“(i) a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the respondents
to implement the statutory provisions contained in
Rule 16(2) and Rule 48 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 by issuing Driving Licenses and Certificate
of Registration of Vehicles in Smart Cards and Smart
Optical Cards as set out in Ext.P3 Government
Notification;
(ii) a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd
respondent to notify the implementation of Smart
Card and Smart Optical Card project at various offices
of the Motor Vehicles Department in the State with
immediate effect with consequential orders thereto;
(iii) a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
WP(C).1309 of 2007 - 2 -
writ, order or direction commanding the respondents
to take all necessary steps for the implementation of
the project for the issuance of Driving Licence and
Certificate of Registration in Smart Card and Smart
Optical Card Format with immediate effect;
(iv) any other or further order as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case”.
The reliefs reproduced above are sought to rest on the pleadings
that the general public of the State is exploited by the
touts/middlemen operating in various Regional Transport/Sub
Transport Offices in the State who maintain an unholy alliance
with certain corrupt officials of the department for providing
various services in connection with issuance of Driving Licences
and Certificate of Registration of vehicles. Even though majority
of the States in India have switched over to the electronic
medium of Smart Card format for issuance of the above
certificates, Kerala State did not take any positive steps to
implement the statutory provisions contained in the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules and has miserably failed to discharge their
statutory powers which are coupled with statutory duties for the
benefit of general public. The official apathy and indifference on
WP(C).1309 of 2007 – 3 –
the part of the respondents have caused denial of justice and
negation of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under
the Constitution of India.
2. The Court finds from the records of the case that for
the reliefs aforesaid, prior in point of time the petitioner made
representation dated 16th December, 2006 before the Chief
Minister of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram and during the course of
argument, it is revealed that the same has not been attended or
responded yet. The Court further finds from the records of the
case that pursuant to notification issued by the Central
Government in the year 2002 for the issuance of Smart Card and
Smart Optical Card, Government of Kerala initiated steps in this
regard in the year 2006. Photo copy of the notification issued by
the Government of Kerala dated 19th June, 2006 has been
annexed with the petition as Exhibit P3. It is the case of the
petitioner that the Government had initiated steps for the award
of contract to implement the above project in February, 2006.
Tenders were invited from qualified bidders for the award of the
contract and upon the completion of the procedures, the contract
had been awarded in March, 2006 to a public sector company,
WP(C).1309 of 2007 – 4 –
but even after the award of contract, no positive steps have been
taken by the Government to implement the scheme in various
Regional Transport Offices of the State.
3. The representation, Exhibit P5 dated 16th December,
2006, has not been attended or responded to yet. Meanwhile, as
mentioned above, notification Exhibit P3 has already been issued
by the Government pursuant to the notification earlier issued by
the Central Government. In these circumstances, the counsel for
the petitioner states that the Court may direct the concerned
respondents to deal with Exhibit P5 representation and decide the
same as expeditiously as possible.
4. Even though when the matter came up for hearing
before us on 11.1.2007 we were inclined to issue directions so as
to at least consider the representation Exhibit P5, but the learned
Government Pleader sought an adjournment. Today again he
seeks an adjournment. In view of the order we are inclined to
pass, we are of the view that no further adjournment be
necessitated.
5. Without going into the merits of the case, we only
direct that the representation, Exhibit P5, be disposed of as
WP(C).1309 of 2007 – 5 –
expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from
today. If the representation, Exhibit P5, may not have to be dealt
with by the Chief Minister himself in exercise of his powers, the
same shall be referred to the competent authority vested with
powers and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the limited
direction as mentioned above. Surely, before taking a decision on
the representation Exhibit P5, all concerned may be heard in the
matter.
V.K.Bali
Chief Justice
M.Ramachandran
vku/- Judge