Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1340 (JHR)

Hare Ram Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2008-11-27

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the letter No. 1060 dated 20.3.2004 and another letter No. 870 of dated 11.3.2004 (Annexures-5 and 5/1), whereby the car registration number of the petitioner, has been cancelled by the respondent no. 3. A further prayer has been made for commanding upon the respondents to allot and to allow him to continue displaying the same registration number on his vehicle as was originally allotted to him . 2. By filing an interlocutory application, the petitioner has informed that the registration number, which was originally allotted to the petitioner has since been allotted to the respondent no. 5 despite the fact that vide order dated 20.4.2004, while issuing notice to the respondent no. 5, this court had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 29.3.2004 (Annexure-5). 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter-affidavit. Though respondent no. 5 has appeared through lawyer, but no counter-affidavit has been filed on his behalf. 4. Case of the petitioner in brief is that he had purchased a Ford passenger car on 1.11.2003 from the authorized dealer. Such purchase was made on the basis of hire purchase agreement with the ICICI Bank Ltd., Jamshedpur Branch. Being desirous of availing choice registration number for his vehicle, the petitioner approached the appropriate transport authority and his application for choice number was accepted and vide communication issued by the respondent no. 2 vide his letter dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was informed that he has been allotted registration number JH-05G-0001. The petitioner deposited the prescribed fee of Rs. 5,000/- for the choice registration number. On the aforesaid number being allotted to him, the petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form for registration of his vehicle before the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur alongwith copies of challans in proof of the deposit of the prescribed fee for the choice number and other required fee i.e. one time tax, H.P. fee, registration fee, late fine and conduct of fitness fee. The petitioner was thereafter issued the said registration number for his vehicle by grant of registration certificate and he was allowed to display the number on his vehicle and since the 3rd week of February 2004, the petitioner has been using the aforesaid registration number. The petitioner was thereafter issued the said registration number for his vehicle by grant of registration certificate and he was allowed to display the number on his vehicle and since the 3rd week of February 2004, the petitioner has been using the aforesaid registration number. While this was so, the petitioner was later served with the impugned letter (Annexure-5) issued by the District Transport Officer (respondent no. 3) informing him that pursuant to the letter of the Transport Commissioner dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure-5/1), the registration number earlier allotted to the petitioner, has been cancelled and the same has been re-allotted to the respondent no. 5 and registered on 16.3.2004. 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid letter of cancellation of his registration number allotted to him, as being arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and against the principles of natural justice, besides being in violation of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Elaborating the grounds, Shri V.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the condition on which the registration number once allotted could be cancelled, have been laid down in Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the present case, none of the conditions as laid down under Section 55 of the Act are attracted. Learned counsel argues further that the District Transport Officer who is the registering authority, without applying his own mind, has cancelled the petitioner's allotted registration number on the dictates of the respondent-Commissioner. 6. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that though the registration number under reference was allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the instruction received from the Joint Transport Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) vide letter dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure-B) after receiving the prescribed fee for the choice number from the petitioner, but a subsequent direction was received from the Transport Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter dated 14.2.2004 for staying the earlier order and intimating that the aforesaid registration number has been allotted to the respondent no. 5. Subsequently, by letter dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure-C) the registration number allotted to the petitioner Hare Ram Singh, stood cancelled and the same number has been allotted to Shri Daljeet Singh (respondent no. 5). 5. Subsequently, by letter dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure-C) the registration number allotted to the petitioner Hare Ram Singh, stood cancelled and the same number has been allotted to Shri Daljeet Singh (respondent no. 5). Learned counsel for the respondent-State would explain that vide Government Notification No. 685 dated 13.7.2001, allotment of a choice number between 1 to 10 can be made by the registering authority under the orders of the State Transport Commissioner. 7. On recapitulation of the facts of the case brought forth by the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following facts emerge:- 1. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a choice registration number for his vehicle before the appropriate authority namely, the respondent no. 2. On considering the petitioner's application, the respondent no. 2 by his letter dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure-2) addressed to the District Transport Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, informed that in response to "the DTO's letter dated 19.12.2003 in the context of the petitioner's prayer for allotment of a choice number. the registration number JH-05G-0001 was allotted to the petitioner Hare Ram Singh subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards registration fee. 2. The petitioner on being informed about the allotment of the aforesaid number; deposited the requisite fee alongwith all other fees as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder and submitted his application before the Transport Officer in the prescribed form annexing thereto the challans in token of proof of the deposit of the requisite fees. 3. On receipt of the petitioner's application, the respondent-District Transport Officer vide his letter dated 17.2.2004 had confirmed issuance of the aforesaid registration number to the petitioner on the basis of the letter of the Joint Transport Commissioner (respondent no. 2) and upon such confirmation, the petitioner began to use and display the aforesaid registration number on his vehicle. 4. It was more than a month after such allotment of the registration number that, vide impugned letter (Annexure-5) the petitioner was Informed by the District Transport Officer that the allotment of the registration number has since been cancelled under the instruction of the Transport Commissioner, as per the latter's communication vide letter dated 11.3.2004 (Annexure-5) and that the same was reallotted to the respondent no.5. 8. 8. From the above facts, and on reading the counter-affidavit of the respondents 2 and 3, it transpires that before cancelling the registration number which was originally allotted to the petitioner, he was neither informed nor was any opportunity given to him about the proposed cancellation of the allotment. It also appears that no reason as been assigned as to why the registration number which already stood allotted to the petitioner, has been cancelled. 9. Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does contain provisions for cancellation of the registration. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have not adverted to any of the conditions as laid down under Section 55 of the Act for cancellation of the registration certificated issued to the petitioner. The only ground stated by the respondents is that the cancellation of the registration number originally allotted to the petitioner, was done on the basis of the direction of the Transport Commissioner. Under the provisions of Section 40 in Chapter-IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, owner of the vehicle shall cause his vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has his residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. Procedure for registration is laid down under Section 41 of the Act, which prescribes that the owner of the vehicle shall submit his application accompanied by other documents, particulars and information as may be required under the Act and Rules for registration of his vehicle and the registering authority shall issue to the owner of the motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. The registering authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a distinguishing mark. The registering authority shall enter the particulars of the certificate issued by him in a register maintained by him, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 2(37) of the Act defines the term 'registering authority' as the Authority empowered to register motor vehicles, under Chapter-IV of the Act. Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for cancellation of registration, lays down that it is the registering authority who is competent to cancel the registration. 10. Section 2(37) of the Act defines the term 'registering authority' as the Authority empowered to register motor vehicles, under Chapter-IV of the Act. Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for cancellation of registration, lays down that it is the registering authority who is competent to cancel the registration. 10. Respondents have adverted to State Government Notification (Annexure-D) and would want to impress that allotment of a choice registration number can be made under the final approval of the Transport Commissioner. On bare perusal of the notification (Annexure-D), it. would be manifest that although, for the allotment of a choice number the authority whose approval would be necessary, is the Transport Commissioner, but the notification does not alter the position under the law that it is the "registering authority" alone who is to register the vehicle and grant the registration certificate to the owner of the vehicle. 11. In the instant case, the facts eloquently declare that allotment of the registration number to the petitioner was duly made after the approval of the Commissioner and the approval was conveyed to the registering authority namely, the District Transport Officer with a direction to issue the registration certificate under the allotted number after receiving the prescribed fee for such registration. Pursuant to such approval being granted by the Transport Commissioner, the District Trans. port Officer registered the vehicle of the petitioner by issuing the registration certificate under the allotted number to the petitioner. Having once confirmed the registration by allotting the number given to the petitioner, the said registration number could be cancelled only under the provisions of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act and not under apparent whimsical orders of the Transport Commissioner. Cancellation of the registration allotted to the petitioner even without giving him an opportunity to be heard against the proposed cancellation, is also against the principles of natural justice besides being in violation of the provisions of Act and Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder. 12. In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned orders 20.3.2004 and 11.3.2004 (Annexures-5 and 5/1), are hereby quashed. 12. In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned orders 20.3.2004 and 11.3.2004 (Annexures-5 and 5/1), are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to allot the registration number JH-05G-0001 which was originally allotted, to the petitioner and to allow him to use and display the said number on his vehicle, as per the original registration certificate granted to him. With this observation, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.