Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 157 (HP)

PRITAM CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2002-06-06

A.K.GOEL, W.A.SHISHAK

body2002
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No. 3 in issuing registration No. HP-37A-0001 in favour of respondent No. 4. 2. Chapter IV of Motor Vehicles Act deals with the registration of vehicles. For ready reference relevant provision of the Act supra is extracted below : "40. Registration, where to be made.—Subject to the provisions of Section 42, Section 43 and Section 60, every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept." 3. It may also be relevant to note that Section 42 deals with provision of registration of Motor Vehicles Act of Diplomats etc. and Section 43 deals with temporary registration. Similarly, Section 60 deals with the registration of vehicles belonging to Central Government. These provisions have been noted because Section 40 supra is subject to these provisions. It was not disputed at the time of hearing of this writ petition on behalf of the respondents that the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of these three sections. 4. Another fact that emerges from the record is that respondent No. 4 does not reside or has her place of business within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. From her stand in the reply filed by her, it is not her case that the vehicle in question which has been allotted registration No. HP-37A-0001 is kept within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. 5. As per averments made in the writ petition, petitioner with a view to get registration No. HP-37-0001 approached the respondent No. 3 along with a bank draft of Rs. 1,000 for allotment of this registration number as far back as on 27.5.2001 vide Annexure PI. He was informed on 29th June, 2001 that the new series HP-37A has not yet been started in the office nor any instructions issued, have been received by the said respondent to deposit the advance for new series. Draft of the petitioner was returned to him by respondent No. 3. 6. On 29.8.2001 he again approached respondent No. 3 for the grant of aforesaid registration number for his vehicle along with the cheque. Draft of the petitioner was returned to him by respondent No. 3. 6. On 29.8.2001 he again approached respondent No. 3 for the grant of aforesaid registration number for his vehicle along with the cheque. However, it was returned with the endorsement which reads as under: "No. 576/LA dated 30.8.2001 Returned along with cheque to the applicant with the remarks that new registration series No. 1 to 100 will be sanctioned by the Director Transport, Shimla. You are therefore, directed to apply with DTO Shimla." 7. After receipt of intimation from respondent No. 3, petitioner approached respondent No. 2 vide Annexures P5 and P6 to allot him the aforesaid number. ; 8. Here it may also be appropriate to observe that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued notification in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 41(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby new series HP-37A from 0001 to 9999 for registration mark was allotted to respondent No. 3 subject to the condition that registration numbers from Serial Nos. 0001 to 0100 shall be registered only on the release letter of Director of Transport, Himachal Pradesh i.e. Respondent No. 2. A copy of this notification has been filed with the reply of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as Annexure R1. For ready reference, this notification is extracted hereinbelow: Notification The Governor, Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (No. 59 of 1988) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf is pleased to allot a new series H.P.-37-A from 0001 to 999 for registration marks to Registering and Licencing Authority, Palampur, District Kangra, subject to the condition that the registration numbers from Sr. Nos. 0001 to 01000 shall be registered only on release letter from the Director of Transport, Himachal Pradesh." 9. What was the basis of claim made by respondent No. 4 for allotting registration No. HP-37-A-0001 to respondent No. 2, nothing has been brought on record by any of the official respondents. Rather they have placed on record a communication from Sh. 0001 to 01000 shall be registered only on release letter from the Director of Transport, Himachal Pradesh." 9. What was the basis of claim made by respondent No. 4 for allotting registration No. HP-37-A-0001 to respondent No. 2, nothing has been brought on record by any of the official respondents. Rather they have placed on record a communication from Sh. Rakesh Pathania, M.L.A. Chairman, H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited Annexure R-II which is also extracted herein below : "Under the new scheme launched by the Government to procure registration number on payment basis, I would like to request to kindly reserve any series and allot number one for the new vehicle in respect of Dr. R.R. Sehgal, resident of Pathankot (Punjab). The relevant papers of the vehicle are enclosed for your information and necessary action please. The case has already been discussed with you on telephone for No. 1 in PALAMPUR Series or any other at the earliest." 10. One common feature of the stand of official as well as private respondents is, that they have challenged the right of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. Per them he has alternate remedy of filing an appeal. 11. Then the next question would be who is the appellate authority under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. What has been stated by respondent No. 4 in preliminary objection No. 2 is as under : "2. That the Honble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. As per the provisions of Rule 34 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 as the Director of Transport i.e. respondent No. 2 is the appellant authority for the purpose of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternate remedy and the said writ petition is also not competent and maintainable on account of the said fact." 12. This plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is the respondent No. 2 who released the registration number as aforesaid in favour of respondent No. 4. That too at the instance of not the said respondent, but on the basis of what is contained in Annexure R2 as extracted hereinabove. 13. In the present day good governance is regulated by the rule of law which is otherwise the system that runs the administration of the Government. That too at the instance of not the said respondent, but on the basis of what is contained in Annexure R2 as extracted hereinabove. 13. In the present day good governance is regulated by the rule of law which is otherwise the system that runs the administration of the Government. So far as the power to allot particular registration numbers is concerned, in terms of Annexure R1 is with respondent No. 2. There is no dispute in this behalf. Whether this power is to be exercised in a reasonable, fair and just or is to be exercised by respondent No. 2 on the askance of some one as has been done in the present case and not by person entitled to the grant of such registration number. No provision at the time of hearing of this writ petition was brought to our notice on behalf of the respondents where under respondent No.2 can abdicate her authority to some one not envisaged under law. >.. 14. Another reason not to uphold the action of respondent No. 2 in allotting the aforesaid registration No. HP-37A-0001 in favour of respondent No. 4 is that the said respondent is not entitled at all to have got her vehicle registered with respondent No. 3 in view of the express provision of Section 40. Admittedly she is a resident of Pathankot in the State of Punjab and her place of business where the vehicle in question is to be kept is also not shown to be at a place which falls within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. 15. Mr. Dadwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated by referring to Annexure RA a photostat copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, that her full (temporary address) is C/o Narinder Jamwal (Advocate) Palampur. Further on her own showing respondent No. 4 has given her permanent address Sehgal Hospital, Pathankot, Punjab. Thus in no case she was entitled to get her said vehicle registered with respondent No. 3. We have no hesitation in observing that respondent No. 3 atleast should have taken care of the provisions of law governing registration with respect to the place where those are to be registered. 16. No other point is urged. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, after this writ petition was formally admitted and finally heard, it is allowed. We have no hesitation in observing that respondent No. 3 atleast should have taken care of the provisions of law governing registration with respect to the place where those are to be registered. 16. No other point is urged. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, after this writ petition was formally admitted and finally heard, it is allowed. As a consequence of it allotment of registration No. HP-37-A-0001 in favour of respondent No. 4 is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. It is further directed that this number shall be treated as vacant and because of application of the petitioner being already there with respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P5, the said respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 18. No costs. W.P. Allowed.