Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 438 (KER)

R. T. O. Palakkad v. Kultikrishnan

1992-11-11

NARAYANA KURUP, VARGHESE KALLIATH

body1992
Judgment :- Narayana Kurup, J. This is an appeal filed by the State - respondent in the Original Petition against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.11910 of 1992 holding that R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (for short'the rules') does not apply so far as the respondent/ petitioner's vehicle is concerned and that the respondent /petitioner cannot be compelled to enhance the number of seats as per wheel base as envisaged under R.269(1) of the Rules while making an application to assign a new registration mark for his vehicle and to endorse transfer of ownership of the same. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: 3. The respondent/ petitioner is the registered owner of vehicle TMN 4990. He purchased the said vehicle from one N.S. Mani on 13-8-1992. The vehicle was registered on 23-4-1985 with the Registering Authority Kumbakonam, Thanjavoor District, Tamil Nadu. The respondent/petitioner is a resident of Palghat town. The vehicle having thus been brought to Kerala, he submitted Ext.P1 application dated 22-S-1992 to the appellant for assigning a new registration mark for the vehicle in Form No.27 as contemplated under R.54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Along with the aforesaid application (Exl.P1), the respondent/ petitioner submitted a No Objection Certificate issued by the Registering Authority, Thanjavoor with respect to the aforementioned vehicle. The respondent/ petitioner also submitted before the appellant on 24-8-1992 necessary application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his favour. These applications were submitted in Form No.29 and Form No.30 as contemplated under the relevant rules of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 vide Exts.P2 and P3. The respondent/ petitioner also produced before the appellant the ration card evidencing that he is residing at Mundur in Palakkad Town. Ext.P4 is the true copy of the covering letter submitted by the respondent/ petitioner along with Exts.P1 to P3. On receipt of Exts.P1 to P4 the appellant, by Ext.P5 proceedings dated 28-8-1992 directed the respondent to produce the vehicle with relevant records for effecting transfer of ownership and assignment of fresh registration mark before the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Palakkad. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the respondent/ petitioner produced the vehicle for inspection before the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Palakkad. On receipt of Exts.P1 to P4 the appellant, by Ext.P5 proceedings dated 28-8-1992 directed the respondent to produce the vehicle with relevant records for effecting transfer of ownership and assignment of fresh registration mark before the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Palakkad. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the respondent/ petitioner produced the vehicle for inspection before the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Palakkad. Upon production of the vehicle as aforesaid the Motor Vehicles Inspector and the appellant herein took the stand that the petitioner/respondent has to increase the seating capacity of the vehicle from the existing 40 seals to 50 seals as contemplated under R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 since the wheel base of the vehicle is 519.5 cros. The respondent was informed by the appellant that only after increasing the seating capacity from 40 to 50 us already directed, can Exts.P1 to P3 be allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ respondent moved this court by O.P.No. 11910 of 1992P for the "issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders compelling the respondent to assign new registration mark for the vehicle TMN 4990 with the 40 seats and to endorse transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner by sanctioning Ext.P 1, P2 and P3 without further delay, at any rate within a lime limit to be fixed by this Honourable Court". The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 9-10-1992 disposed of the Original Petition at the admission stage itself holding that "R.269 does not apply so fur as the petitioner's vehicle is concerned" and further "petitioner cannot be compelled to enhance the number of scats as per wheel base envisaged under R.269(1)" and also "petitioner's application for assignment of a new registration mark and for transfer of vehicle has to be considered without reference to R.269". 4. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the legality of the above findings of the learned Single Judge. 5. On the above facts, the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant can insist upon the compliance of R.269 of the Rules and ask the respondent to enhance the seating capacity from 40 to 50 as a condition precedent for assigning a new registration mark for the vehicle TMN 4990 and transfer of ownership? 6. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contended before us that the learned Single judge should have dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner's vehicle TMN 4990 was registered as a stage carriage in the year 1985 in the State of Tamil Nadu as per the provisions of Chapter IV of Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the relevant provisions of the Rules made thereunder in the State of Tamil Nadu and hence when the same vehicle is sought to be assigned a new registration mark in the State of Kerala under the repealed Act and Rules, provisions contained in R.269(1) has to be followed strictly. In reply to the above contention, counsel for the respondent submitted that since his only prayer as evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3 was to assign a new registration mark for his vehicle TMN 4990 with the 40 seals and to endorse transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, R.269 of the Rules which deals with the minimum seating capacity of stage carriage has no application to his case. In support of the above contention, the respondent relied on Ext.P6 judgment of this court rendered in O.P.No. 10783/92 dated 24-8-1992 holding that "obviously R.269 does not apply and the petitioner cannot be compelled to enhance the number of scaIes as per wheel base" and that "his application for assigning a new registration mark and for transfer of vehicle has to be dealt with without reference to R.269". 7. On the above rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities can compel the respondent/ petitioner to enhance the seating capacity of his vehicle from 40 to 50 as a preclude to assign a new registration mark for the same with the present 40 seals and to endorse transfer of ownership. Having considered R.269 of the Rules and, in particular sub-rule (3) thereof and the relevant provisions of the Central Act and the Rules framed thereunder, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is only to be dismissed. 8. There is no dispute that the vehicle was registered in 1985 in the State of Tamil Nadu long before the commencement of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules on 14th June, 1989. 8. There is no dispute that the vehicle was registered in 1985 in the State of Tamil Nadu long before the commencement of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules on 14th June, 1989. Obviously, therefore, the appellant cannot press into service R.269 of the Rules to compel the respondent to enhance the number of seats from 40 to 50 commensurate with the wheel base. On a careful reading of R.269 of the Rules, it can be seen that the said Rule deals with minimum seating capacity of stage carriage. It has nothing to do with transfer of ownership or assigning new registration mark which are governed by other independent provisions. Vide S.47(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (assigning new registration mark), S.47(4) thereof (registration of vehicles not registered within the State). R.48 al' the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 deals with issue of certificate of registration R.49 thereof enjoins that every registering authority shall keep in Form 24 a permanent register of motor vehicles registered by it under S.41 and of motor vehicles of other States for which new registration mark are assigned by it, etc. Moreover, sub-rule (3) of R.269 of the Rules providing for minimum seating capacity of stage carriage shall not apply to a stage carriage "registered before the commencement of these rules but when its body is reconstructed at any time it shall provide the maximum number of scats possible in the existing body to the satisfaction of the registering authority". From a reading of this sub-rule (269(3)) the position is made a bundantly clear that sub-rule (1) of R.269 of the Rules does not apply to a stage carriage registered before the commencement of the Rules (14-6-1989) and the authorities are empowered to insist maximum number of seats only in the event of the reconstruction of the body 'at any time' meaning thereby at any time after the commencement of the Kerala Rules on 14-6-1989 as aforesaid. It is nobody's case that the respondent has applied for reconstruction of the body of his vehicle. Misapplication is only fgrassigning new registration mark and transfer of ownership. 9. It is nobody's case that the respondent has applied for reconstruction of the body of his vehicle. Misapplication is only fgrassigning new registration mark and transfer of ownership. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that R.269(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules does not apply to a vehicle registered before the commencement of the Rules and the appellant is bound to assign new registration mark to the vehicle of the respondent and to register its transfer of ownership by sanctioning Exts. P1 to P3. A direction is therefore issued to the appellant to assign new registration mark to the vehicle of the respondent and to register transfer of ownership without reference to R.269(1). 10. A reference was made to a decision of this Court reported in Muraleedharan Pillai v. R.T.O. Kollam (1992 (1) KLT 726).r The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case the stage carriage was registered with a seating capacity of 58 initially and the owner subsequently wanted to have the seating capacity reduced to 39. In that context, this court held that it is not the right of any owner of a vehicle to reduce seating capacity in any manner he likes and that there is nothing wrong if the registering authority took into account possibility of loss of revenue for the State as a consequence of slicing down the seating capacity. The decision therefore, is of no assistance either side. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.