Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 143 (PAT)

Raja Ram Singh v. State Of Bihar

2003-02-04

AFTAB ALAM

body2003
Judgment 1. Though this case is listed for the first time and Mr. R.K. Dutta, S.C. IV has had no time to get any instructions in this matter, having regard to the nature of the case and the order proposed to be passed he agreed that this matter may be disposed of today itself. 2. According in the petitioner he is a sub-dealer of two wheelers and has a valid trade certificate issued by the registering authority. A photo stat copy of the trade certificate is at Annexure 1 from which it appears that it remains valid and subsisting till 25.9.2003. It is stated by the petitioner that one of his employees had taken out a new motor cycle bearing Engine No. DMMBJH-24535 and Chassis No. DMFR. JH-73529 for a test ride when the motor cycle was seized by the A.S.I. on the ground that it was being driven without a proper registration number. 3. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the necessity for registration but the section has a proviso exempting a dealer from the requirements, subject to the conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. It is further stated that in this regard the Central Government has framed Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 rule 33 of which is as follows : "For the purpose of the proviso to Section 39, a motor vehicle in the possession of a dealer shall be exempt from the necessity of registration subject to the condition that he obtains a trade certificate from the registering authority having jurisdiction in the area in which the dealer has his place of business in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter." 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a valid and subsisting trade certificate and according to its case the motor cycle had been taken out for a test ride, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the seized motor cycle shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Subdivisional Officer, Mahua, Vaishali at Hajipur. The Sub-divisional Officer will not insist on cash security and it will be open to the petitioner to offer immoveable property, if otherwise found acceptable, for the release of the motor vehicle. The Sub-divisional Officer will not insist on cash security and it will be open to the petitioner to offer immoveable property, if otherwise found acceptable, for the release of the motor vehicle. The security furnished by the petitioner shall abide by any order that may be passed in any criminal case or a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act and/or Motor Vehicle Taxation Act.