Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 18 (GAU)

A. Zhimomi v. State of Nagaland

1996-02-05

W.A.SHISHAK

body1996
The petitioner impugns the notification No.1lPT/MV/2/79 dated 29th June, 1995 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. The said order is reproduced : "It has been observed that many Government vehicles do not have the vehicle registration number printed on the body of vehicles, despite notification having been issued in this regard vide No.TPT/MV/2/89 dated 30th September, 1992. In continuation of the earlier notification, it has been decided that henceforth all vehicles in the State, whether Government or private including Police vehicles, registered in Nagaland shall mandatorily paint the registration number on both ides of the body and on the bonnet over and above the normal registration made. The above order shall henceforth be strictly imposed after one week from the date of issue of this notification." 2. The petitioner is a legal practitioner by profession. He owns a private Maruti Car bearing registration No.NL 01-1344. On 7.8.1995 while allowing the Government to file counter fixing 16.8.95,'the following interim order was passed : "In the meantime the impugned notification dated 29.6.95 issued by the Additional Secretary, Transport and Communication Department shall remain suspended in so far as it concerns private vehicles." It may be stated that the petitioner impugns the entire notification. In otherwords it is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned notification is not at all applicable to all categories of vehicles whether such vehicles are owned by the Government or private or that matter by any Corporation or Government undertakings. Government has filed counter affidavit. A copy of earlier Government notification dated 30th September, 1992 referred to in the impugned notification has been made available. It appears, the 1992 notification did not include private vehicles. Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of me petitioner submits that the power to make Rules concerning the manner in which registration is to be made or how registration is to be displayed on the vehicles and all other connected matters is vested only in the Central Government. It is the contention of Mr. Taka Masa that State Government is only authorised to carry out registration in accordance with the Rules made in this regard by the Central Government. It is the contention of Mr. Taka Masa that State Government is only authorised to carry out registration in accordance with the Rules made in this regard by the Central Government. Learned counsel draws my attention to section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with particular reference to clause (6) which is rendered as follows: "(6) The registering authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a distinguishing mark (in this Act referred to as the registration mark) consisting of one of the groups of such of those letters and followed by such letters and figures as are allotted to the State by the Central Government from time to time by notification in the Official Gazzette, and displayed and shown on the motor vehicle in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government." It appears this has to be read with section 64 (d) which is reproduced: "64. (d) the manner in which and the form in which the registration mark, the letters and figures and other particulars referred to in sub-section (6) of section 41 shall be displayed and shown." Section 65 is as regard the power of the State Government to make Rules. Since the State Government is not authorised to make any Rules as regards the manner in which registration is to be made and registration mark to be displayed, the action of the State Government in this regard is unauthorised. 3. Para 4 of the Government affidavit stated that "the notification dated 29.6.95 was issued to effectively control of number plates changing quickly by anti-social elements. It is also reported that sometimes private vehicles number plates changed to Government registration number to avoid police normal checking and also while special checking done". It is further stated in the same para that "though the power to make Rules by the manner in which the registration marks on vehicles should be displayed lies with Central Government the subject of law and order is with the State Government. All the contrary statements are denied". Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that in order to deal with the abnormal law and order situation in Nagaland effectively, the impugned notification was issued. According to him therefore, although rule making power is vested with the Central Government, the action of the State is bonafide and it cannot be said to be illegal. All the contrary statements are denied". Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that in order to deal with the abnormal law and order situation in Nagaland effectively, the impugned notification was issued. According to him therefore, although rule making power is vested with the Central Government, the action of the State is bonafide and it cannot be said to be illegal. I have carefully perused the impugned order in the light of the provisions of section 41 and section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It appears if the State considers it necessary to have the registration number printed on both sides of the body and on the bonnet over .and above the normal registration which is displayed at certain place in terms of the Rules made in this regard under the law, the State ought to have consulted the Central Government for necessary amendment or authorisation in this regard. In my view it is not only unfair and unreasonable to compell vehicle owners to paint registration number "on both sides of the body and on the bonnet over and above the normal registration made" but such would cost uncalled for expenditure and would also damage the original look of the vehicle. It is contended by the petitioner that in fact if the impugned order is to be carried into effect it would lower the aesthetic appeal of the vehicles. At the same time the petitioner who owns a private vehicle cannot be compelled to do even certain things which in appropriate cases might be done in respect of some transport vehicles. 4. In the light of the clear provisions laid down in this regard and in the facts and circumstances of this case and upon perusal of the impugned notification, I am of the view that the said notification is without jurisdiction and incompetent. Accordingly notification dated 29.6.95 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government is quashed. Consequently the Government order No.TPT/MV/2/89 dated 30th September, 1992 which has been incorporated in the present impugned notification shall also stand quashed. Petition is disposed of. No costs.