In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court ruled that vehicle owners cannot be penalized for using “Safety Glazing” materials that comply with the amended Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The judgment, delivered by Justice N. Nagaresh, highlights the legal protection for vehicle owners against arbitrary penalties imposed by the State’s transport authorities, ensuring that safety standards specified by law are respected and upheld.
Background of the Case
The case involved two writ petitions, WP(C) No. 23146 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 28289 of 2022, filed by M/s. George & Sons and other petitioners, challenging the actions of the State’s transport authorities for imposing penalties on the usage of “Safety Glazing” in motor vehicles. The petitioners argued that the penalties were in violation of the amended Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (CMV Rules), which permits the use of “Safety Glazing” conforming to specified standards.
The petitioners, represented by senior counsel P. Ravindran, along with advocates D. Kishore, Lakshmi Ramadas, and Meera Gopinath, contended that the State authorities were unlawfully penalizing vehicle owners despite their compliance with the amended rules. The respondents included the Union of India, represented by Central Government Counsel Mini Gopinath, K.S. Prenjith Kumar, and M. Shajna, and the State of Kerala, represented by Government Pleader K.M. Faisal.
Important Legal Issues Involved
1. Interpretation of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules: The key legal issue was whether the State authorities could penalize vehicle owners who were using “Safety Glazing” material that conformed to the amended Rule 100 standards, which allow the use of specific safety glazing materials that meet the Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision): 2019.
2. Compliance with Visual Light Transmission (VLT) Requirements: The petitioners argued that their “Safety Glazing” products, manufactured by M/s. Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited, conformed to the required Indian standards and maintained the visual light transmission (VLT) levels as specified by the amended rules — 70% VLT for front and rear windows and 50% VLT for side windows.
Decision of the Court
Justice N. Nagaresh ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that the actions of the State’s transport authorities in penalizing the usage of “Safety Glazing” were illegal and unsustainable under the amended rules. The court emphasized that the amended Rule 100 of the CMV Rules now permits the use of “Safety Glazing” materials that meet specific Indian standards, and there was no legal basis for penalizing vehicle owners who adhered to these standards.
The court observed:
“The State Government or its officials are not legally justified in penalizing owners of any motor vehicles, the windscreens or window glasses of which are maintained with ‘Safety Glass’ or ‘Safety Glazing,’ including ‘Glazing Faced with Plastics,’ which conforms to the Indian Standard; IS 2553 (Part 2) (First Revision): 2019.”
The court further noted that the challans issued against the petitioners were “illegal and unsustainable in law.” The court quashed the penalties imposed on the petitioners, including Ext.P8 in WP(C) No. 23146 of 2022 and Exts.P1, P1(a), and P1(b) in WP(C) No. 28289 of 2022.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. George & Sons vs. Union of India
Case Numbers: WP(C) No. 23146 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 28289 of 2022
Judgment Date: September 10, 2024
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
