IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8100 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- E.K.RAJAN, S/O.E.K.KANARAN, GOKULAM, PALLIPARAMBATH VEEDU, P.O.CHOMBALA, VADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 8100 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a person working as the Manager of a stage carriage service known as Priyanka Roadways. His establishment is conducting service with three vehicles. He has filed this writ petition challenging the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner wherein it is provided that the original R.C books, licence and other documents produced by the parties before the concerned Motor Vehicle Authority shall be returned only by speed post to the party concerned. According to the petitioner, Rule 124 stipulates three modes for the return of such original documents. Therefore, the circular which restricts the mode of return of the original document to only one of the modes prescribed is violative of the Rule. The Transport Commissioner has no jurisdiction to confine the mode of return of the original documents to speed post alone. 2. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader submits that the circular has been brought into force only to ensure that the original records are returned to the person who has actually produced them before the authority. The method would only ensure that the original WPC 8100/2010 2 records do not fall into the hands of unauthorised persons. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, the circular does not violate any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short) or the Rules thereunder. 3. I have heard Shri. G.Prabhakaran who appears for the petitioner and Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar, learned Senior Govt. Pleader. I have anxiously considered the contentions raised before the Court. Rule 124 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as follows:- “Service of communications to parties:-(1) Any communication issued by the Transport Authorities or the executive officers of such authorities or by the Government or by the Tribunal in respect of matters falling under Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be served by the executive officers of the Transport Authorities or by any other officer authorised by them in this behalf, by any one of the following methods, namely:- a) by delivery or tender of a copy of the communication to the addressee; b) by recorded delivery or under certificate of posting; c) by registered post; WPC 8100/2010 3 Provided that if upon an attempt having been made to serve the communication by any of the above mentioned methods, the serving officer is satisfied that the addressee is avoiding service or that for any other reason, the communication cannot be served by any of the methods, the executive officer of the Transport Authority concerned shall order the service of the communication by affixing a copy thereof on some conspicuous part of the addressee's last place of business or garrage as notified by him or where the addressee habitually resides and such service shall be as valid as if the addressee has acknowledged in writing. 2) When the serving officer delivers or tenders a copy of the communication to the addressee personally, his acknowledgement of the receipt thereof shall be got endorsed on the original communication.” 4. As per the above Rule, the original records or any communications to parties may be served by the executive officers or by any other officer authorised by them in one of the modes prescribed in the rule. The Rule does not mandate any particular mode of service nor does it exclude any other mode of service. Sub Rule(1)(b) permits service by recorded delivery or under certificate of posting and (c) by registered post. The above modes certainly WPC 8100/2010 4 include service by speed post also. Clause (a) of Sub Rule (1) stipulates delivery or tender of a copy of the communication to the addressee; which can also be effected by speed post. Ext.P1 circular does not prohibit service of communications by any of the other modes prescribed. Ext. P1 circular has been issued in implementation of a scheme to issue communications and to deliver the original records produced by the parties before the authorities through speed post. I do not find any portion of Ext.P1 to be objectionable or violative of Rule 124 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The Transport Commissioner's action in issuing the circular cannot be termed as without jurisdiction. The circular being only one issued for administrative convenience, I do not find anything objectionable therein. I also notice that no rights of the petitioner have been infringed or violated by the issue of Ext.P1 circular. In the above circumstances this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8100/2010 5 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: