Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 185 (KAR)

N. VASANTHA KUMAR v. R. T. O. , KOLAR

1987-07-15

N.VENKATACHALA

body1987
N. VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of learned counsel, this writ petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard them. ( 2 ) WHEN a motor vehicle's owner, who ceases to reside or has his place of business at the address recorded in the Certificate of Registration of that vehicle, the same being outside the State of Karnataka, makes an application under S. 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), to the jurisdictional registering authority in the State of Karnataka seeking entry of his changed address in the Certificate of Registration of that vehicle, can such registering authority refuse to make the required entry on the ground that the requirement of R. 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), relating to providing of minimum number of seats in the vehicle concerned, has not been complied with, is the short point, which arises for decision here. ( 3 ) ONE L. G. Padmanabhan Reddy of Nellore in Andhra Pradesh, who got his motor vehicle with 54 passengers seating capacity, registered with the motor vehicles' registering authority at Nellore, on 2-5-1984, with registration No. AAN 9261, obtained a Certificate of Registration therefor. His address, as found in the Certificate of Registration, was of Nellore. The petitioner in this writ petition, N. Vasanth Kumar, who purchased that vehicle from L. G. Padmanabha Reddy on 17-6-1987, obtained from the Nellore registering authority a 'no Objection Certificate' for removing that vehicle to Madras, in that, he had given his address as "no. 405, Mint Street, Madras-79". On 18-6-1987, the petitioner obtained from the Madras registering authority (Regional Transport Officer, Madras West) transfer of ownership of that vehicle to his name and got his name entered in the Certificate of Registration of that vehicle as its registered owner. On that very day, he having made an application under S. 32 of the Act before the same registering authority, got the seating capacity of that vehicle reduced from 54 to 37 and also obtained the necessary endorsement in the Certificate of Registration of that vehicle. Further, he having obtained from the same registering authority, a 'no Objection Certificate' for removing the vehicle from Madras in Tamil Nadu to Chintamani in Kolar District of the State of Karnataka, removed the vehicle to Chintamani. Further, he having obtained from the same registering authority, a 'no Objection Certificate' for removing the vehicle from Madras in Tamil Nadu to Chintamani in Kolar District of the State of Karnataka, removed the vehicle to Chintamani. On 24-6-1987, he made an application in Form-E of the I Schedule to the Act, before the Kolar registering authority (Regional Transport Officer, Kolar - the respondent) and sought from the latter effecting of an entry in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle relating to the change of his address as "m. G. Road, Chintamani". The respondent, by his endorsement dated 27-6-1987 issued to the petitioner, gave an intimation to the effect that the entry relating to the change of address in the Certificate of Registration sought for by him, could be effected only after he complies with the requirement of R. 216 of the Rules relating to providing of minimum seating capacity in the vehicle concerned. The petitioner has impugned in this writ petition, the said endorsement and has sought for issue of a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent directing him to enter the changed address of the petitioner in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle bearing registration No. AAN 9261, as sought for. ( 4 ) SRI B. R. S. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the jurisdictional motor vehicles' registering authority of the State of Karnataka, who is given intimation of the change of address of the owner of a motor vehicle as required under S. 30 of the Act, is required thereunder to effect entry of the changed address of the owner of the vehicle in its Certificate of Registration and cannot refuse to effect such entry on the ground that the vehicle concerned does not comply with the requirement of R. 216 of the Rules relating to the minimum seating capacity to be provided therein. According to him, S. 30 of the Act does not impose any obligation on the part of the owner of a motor vehicle, who seeks entry relating to the change of his address in the Certificate of Registration of that vehicle from the jurisdictional registering authority in the State of Karnataka, to comply with the requirement of R. 216 of the Rules relating to the minimum seating capacity in the vehicle concerned. Further, according to him, S. 30 of the Act does not also empower the jurisdictional registering authority to refuse to enter in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle the changed address of the owner intimated to it on the ground of noncompliance with R. 216 of the Rules. In other words, his submission was that the endorsement issued by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner should comply with the requirement of R. 216 of the Rules relating to providing of minimum seating capacity in the vehicle concerned, is to be regarded as one issued beyond its powers under S. 30 of the Act, an ultra vires Act. Consequently, he prayed for its quashing and further for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to effect entry relating to the petitioner's change of address in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle concerned, as required under S. 30 of the Act. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri P. R. Ramesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner's conduct in getting the motor vehicle concerned removed from Nellore in Andhra Pradesh to Madras in Tamil Nadu and getting the seating capacity of that vehicle reduced from 54 to 37 from the registering authority at Madras and having brought the vehicle to Chintamani in Kolar District and seeking from the Kolar registering authority in State of Karnataka the making of entry relating to his changed address, being a contrivance to defeat R. 216 of the Rules relating to minimum seating capacity to be provided in a motor vehicle to be registered in the State of Karnataka, disentitles him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court to obtain the relief sought for by him. According to him, the petitioner is not entitled to obtain from this Court relief sought for by him, in that, it was open to the jurisdictional registering authority obtaining intimation under S. 30 of the Act, of the change of address of the owner of a motor vehicle to refuse to effect entry of the changed address in the Certificate of Registration of such vehicle, on the ground of non-compliance with R. 216 of the Rules, in that R. 180 of the Rules prohibits the use in public place in the State, a motor vehicle, which does not comply with the requirement of R. 216 a Rule in Chapter V of the Rules. ( 6 ) AS it would be advantageous to refer to the material provisions of the Act and the rules and their purport, before proceeding to examine the submissions of either side made thereon, I shall do so. ( 7 ) SECTION 30 of the Act, in so far as it is material, reads :"30. Change of residence or place of business - (1) If the owner of a motor vehicle ceases to reside or have his place of business at the address recorded in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, he shall, within 30 days of any such change of address, intimate his new address to the registering authority by which the certificate of registration was issued, or if the new address is within the jurisdiction of another registering authority, to that other registering authority, and shall at the same time forward the certificate of registration to the registering authority in order that the new address may be entered therein. (1a) If the owner of a motor vehicle fails to intimate his new address to the concerned registering authority within the period specified in Sub-Sec. (1), the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under S. 112, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under Sub-Sec. (1c) : provided that action under S. 112 shall be initiated against the owner where he fails to pay the said amount. (1b) (1c) For the purpose of Sub-Sec. (1a), a State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay in intimating the change in the place of residence, or place of business, or both, as recorded in the certificate of registration. (2) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the altered address to the original registering authority. (3 ). " ( 8 ) RULE 180 in Chapter V of the Rules, in so far as it is material, reads :"180. General.- (1) No person shall use and no person shall cause or allow to be used or to be in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the rules contained in this chapter. . . . " ( 9 ) RULE 216 in Chapter V of the Rules, in so far as it is material, reads :"216. Limit of seating capacity - (1 ). . (2) The minimum seating capacity of a public service vehicle shall be directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. . . . . . . " ( 10 ) AS the provision in S. 112 of the Act would throw light in the proper understanding of the scope and ambit of the provision in S. 30 of the Act, the same is excerpted :"112. General provision for punishment of offences - Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for the offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or, if having been previously convicted of any offence under this Act he is again convicted of an offence under this Act, with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees. " ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of S. 30 of the Act provides that a motor vehicle's owner, who ceases to reside or have his place of business at the address recorded in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, shall, within the time provided therefor, intimate his changed address to the registering authority, by which the Certificate of Registration was issued, if the changed address is within the jurisdiction of that authority or if the changed address is within the jurisdiction of any other registering authority, to the latter authority. And the owner of a vehicle, who intimates his new address to the concerned registering authority, shall forward the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle to such authority, so as to enable it to enter such new address in the Certificates of Registration. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that if the registering authority receiving the intimation of the changed address of the owner of the vehicle, is different from the original registering authority, the former shall communicate to the latter the change in the address of the owner of the vehicle entered in the Certificate of Registration. Sub-Section (1a), which is introduced by Act 47 of 1978, puts it beyond doubt that the owner of a motor vehicle, who fails to intimate his new address to the concerned registering authority, commits an offence punishable with fine as provided for in S. 112 of the Act, though the registering authority concerned is empowered to make such owner pay an amount as may be prescribed under Sub-Section (1c)introduced by the same amending Act, however, such amount not being in excess of Rs. 100/ -. Coming to R. 216 (2) in Chapter V of the Rules, it requires that a public service vehicle shall have a minimum seating capacity which is directly proportionate to its wheel base. Then, R. 180 in Chapter V of the Rules prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, if it does not comply with the Rules in. Chapter V which includes R. 216. Further, S. 112 provides for punishment for contravention of any provision of the Act or the Rules, where no punishment is provided therefor elsewhere. ( 12 ) AS seen already, under S. 30, a motor vehicle's owner, who changes his address cannot avoid his responsibility of intimating the changed address to the jurisdictional registering authority, in that, the non-intimation of such changed address would be an offence involving punishment. The purpose for which such intimation of the changed address has to be given to the jurisdictional registering authority, as is indicated-in the very Section, is in order to enable that authority to enter the changed address in the vehicle's Certificate of Registration, forwarded to it. What arises for consideration here, is whether the entry of changed address to be made by the registering authority in the vehicle's Certificate of Registration has to be regarded as an obligatory duty. What arises for consideration here, is whether the entry of changed address to be made by the registering authority in the vehicle's Certificate of Registration has to be regarded as an obligatory duty. Sub-Section (1) of S. 30 of the Act does not state in express words that the making of such entry by the jurisdiction registering authority is an obligatory one. Then, can such an obligation be attributed to the jurisdictional registering authority as one implied under the provision. The answer to this query has to be in the affirmative for the reasons which I shall state. ( 13 ) SECTION 22 of the Act prohibits the use of a vehicle in any public place or in any other place for the purpose of carrying passengers or goods, unless the vehicle is registered and the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle is in force. The Certificate of Registration of motor vehicle could be applied for by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle and issued to such owner, under S. 24 thereof. Under various other provisions of the Act, it is the owner of a motor vehicle, whose name is found in the vehicle's certificate of Registration, who could be held liable for contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Certificate of Registration of the vehicle to be issued, to the owner, will contain the permanent and temporary address of such owner, as seen from Form-G of the First Schedule to the Act. Certificate of Registration issued under the Act respecting a motor vehicle would be effective throughout India. From a perusal of the various regulatory provisions of the Act, it becomes obvious that they have been made in the interest of public safety and for public good. As the owner of a motor vehicle becomes liable for punishment for any contravention of the provisions of the Act in the use of such vehicle or otherwise, the Legislature intends that such person shall be easily traceable when an occasion arises. Under the provisions of the Act, when the vehicle's Certificate of Registration is issued to its owner, his name will have to be entered not only in the Certificate of Registration, but also in the relevant register of the registering authority. When the address of the vehicle's owner is changed, the authorities enforcing the provisions of the Act must come to know of the changed address. When the address of the vehicle's owner is changed, the authorities enforcing the provisions of the Act must come to know of the changed address. For knowing such changed address of the owner of a motor vehicle, necessarily entry of such changed address has to be made not only in the Certificate of Registration, but also in the register relating to the registration maintained by the registering authority as also the register of the original registration of such vehicle. If S. 30 of the Act is enacted for achieving this purpose, the registering authority, who receives intimation of the changed address of the owner along with the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, under Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 30 of the Act, has not only to make entry of such change of address in the Certificate of Registration, but also has to intimate such change of address to the original registering authority where it is not such registering authority, so as to enable the original registering authority to effect change of entry in its original register relating to the vehicle. Therefore, the provision in Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 30 though states that the owner of a motor vehicle, who changes his address, shall give intimation of the same to the registering authority concerned in order to enable the latter to effect the entry in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, it has to be implied, having regard to the aforesaid purpose sought to be achieved by the Legislation, that the duty of making the entry by the registering authority of the changed address in the Certificate of Registration, is obligatory. ( 14 ) WHAT has now to be seen is whether the performance of the obligation of making the entry of changed address in the Certificate of Registration of a motor vehicle by the jurisdictional registering authority should depend upon its satisfaction that the vehicle concerned has conformed to the Rules in this State, and as a condition precedent. ( 14 ) WHAT has now to be seen is whether the performance of the obligation of making the entry of changed address in the Certificate of Registration of a motor vehicle by the jurisdictional registering authority should depend upon its satisfaction that the vehicle concerned has conformed to the Rules in this State, and as a condition precedent. According to the learned High Court Government Pleader, since R. 216 (2) of the Rules in force in the State of Karnataka, requires a public service vehicle to have minimum seating capacity, which shall be directly proportionate to its wheel base and the non-fulfilment of that requirement invites the penalty contemplated under R. 180 of the Rules, the jurisdictional registering authority in this State can compel the owner of the vehicle to conform to R. 216 (2) as a condition precedent for making entry of his changed address in the Certificate of Registration of that vehicle. Undoubtedly, R. 216 (2) requires that a public service vehicle should provide for a minimum seating capacity prescribed therein. If that requirement is not satisfied respecting a motor vehicle, which is a public service vehicle, R. 180 relating to penalty therefor could also operate. But, when there is nothing in S. 30 of the Act, which requires the registering authority concerned therein to compel the owner of the vehicle intimating the change of his address, to get his vehicle altered so as to conform to Rule 216 of the Rules, as a condition precedent for obtaining entry regarding change of his address in the Certificate of Registration, it cannot do so, inasmuch as, if it does so, it would be an act done in excess of its powers and without authority of law. From this it follows that the jurisdictional registering authority in this State, is under a statutory obligation to effect the entry of the changed address of the owner of a vehicle when required to do so by the latter, without insisting upon him to comply with the requirement of R. 216 of the Rules, as a condition precedent. From this it follows that the jurisdictional registering authority in this State, is under a statutory obligation to effect the entry of the changed address of the owner of a vehicle when required to do so by the latter, without insisting upon him to comply with the requirement of R. 216 of the Rules, as a condition precedent. ( 15 ) IN the instant case, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent has to be regarded as one issued without authority of law, in that, it requires the owner of the vehicle to conform to R. 216 of the Rules as a condition precedent for obtaining entry regarding change of address in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle, and hence the impugned endorsement is unsustainable in law and calls to be quashed. As the registering authority has failed to perform its obligatory duty, a statutory duty, of making the entry in the Certificate of Registration of the petitioner's vehicle, it has to be compelled by a writ in the nature of mandamus to perform such duty. ( 16 ) WHAT, therefore, remains for consideration is whether the quashing of the impugned endorsement and the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to perform its duty of effecting entry in the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle could be denied to the petitioner in view of his conduct, which, according to the learned High Court Government Pleader, is blame-worthy. It is true that the conduct of a person, who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for relief, should not be blame-worthy. But, in the instant case, even if it is assumed that the petitioner's conduct is blame-worthy, the same cannot be a ground to refuse relief sought for by him inasmuch as the relief sought for by him is intended to fulfil the purpose of the Act, that is, keeping the authorities in the know of the latest where-abouts of the owner of a vehicle for enforcing the provisions of the Act against him when any contravention of the provisions of the Act is committed in the use or otherwise of the vehicle concerned - indeed such purpose itself being in public interest and for public good. Hence, the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the relief sought for by the petitioner should be denied to him, cannot be conceded. Hence, the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the relief sought for by the petitioner should be denied to him, cannot be conceded. 16-A. In the result, I allow this writ petition, quash the impugned endorsement (Annexure-A) and direct the respondent to effect entry of the changed address of the petitioner in the Certificate of Registration of his vehicle bearing No. AAN 9261. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .