Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 261 (PNJ)

Jagjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2008-01-31

M.M.KUMAR, T.P.S.MANN

body2008
Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. The petitioner has sought issuance of directions to the respondents to issue him the Registration Certificate bearing No. PB-02-AS-0001 in respect of the vehicle purchased by him. 2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the car in the year 2005 and applied for the allotment of a paid registration bearing aforementioned number of his choice. His request was entertained and he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as required by Rule 42-A of Punjab Motors Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules) and another sum of Rs. 10,350/- towards the other requirements. The total amount of Rs. 60,350/- was deposited by him on 1112006 (sic) vide challan Annexure P. 1. In spite of the same, respondent-department did not issue Registration Certificate to him for the above mentioned choice registration number. He even filed a writ in this Court, which was disposed of on 28-7-2006 and the respondents were directed to take final decision in respect of the grant of the Registration Certificate. Finally on 22-9-2006, the respondent-authorities informed the petitioner through his counsel that he was not eligible to apply for the allotment of required registration number, as he was not the owner of the vehicle said to be purchased by him. 3. In their joint written reply, respondents have submitted that though the petitioner had applied for allotment of paid registration number yet he deposited an amount of Rs. 60,350/- of his own after getting the challan papers stamped from the office of the registering authority, as no specific directions/written orders was given to him in that regard. At no point of time any approval was given by the respondents for the allotment of the choice registration number. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question was originally registered in the name of one Naresh Prasad with the Registering Authority, P.V.D., Calcutta, which authority issued No Objection Certificate to Regional Transport Officer, Mumbai (for short R.T.O. Mumbai) in form No. 28 for transferring the said vehicle to one Rajdeep Singh Marwaha. It was subsequently re-directed to the Registering Authority (Motors), Amritsar by R.T.O., Mumbai (Central). In the said No Objection Certificate, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. It was also submitted that though the petitioner had attached the required documents, i.e. Form Nos. It was subsequently re-directed to the Registering Authority (Motors), Amritsar by R.T.O., Mumbai (Central). In the said No Objection Certificate, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. It was also submitted that though the petitioner had attached the required documents, i.e. Form Nos. 30, 29, 28, 60 and 26 (required for the allotment of new registration number) with his application, yet all the relevant columns of the said forms/documents were incomplete and totally blank. Moreover, the signatures appearing in those forms/documents did not appear to be that of Naresh Prasad, the original owner of the vehicle in question. As the proper procedure as required under Central Motors Vehicle Rules, 1989 relating to the transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle had not been complied with by the petitioner, therefore, mere deposit of the registration fee did not create any right in him to seek the allotment of choice registration number. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case which has been produced by the respondents. 5. The petitioner had sought transfer of registration of a vehicle, which was initially registered with Registering Authority of P.V.D., Calcutta, who issued a No Objection Certificate to R.T.O., Mumbai-37. The said No Objection Certificate was re-directed by R.T.O., Mumbai (Central) to R.T.O., Amritsar (Punjab) as per the request received from the registered owner. A perusal of the No Objection Certificate, which was initially issued by Registering Authority, P.V.D., Calcutta and thereafter re-directed by R.T.O., Mumbai (Central) shows that Naresh Prasad, who was the registered owner of the vehicle in question intended to sell it to Rajdeep Singh Marwaha. Nowhere in the No Objection Certificate, there is any mention that the registered owner wanted to sell his vehicle in favour of the petitioner nor any declaration has been obtained by the petitioner from Rajdeep Singh Marwaha about his having agreed to the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the various forms required for transfer of ownership of motor vehicle which are available on the file and said to have been submitted while applying for transfer of the ownership in his favour and sanctioning of registration number of his choice reveals that all of them are totally blank except for bearing the signatures of the registered owner of the vehicle. Even these documents are not the originals but photostat copies of the same. Though the original of these documents may be containing the signatures of the registered owner, a bare look at them shows resemblance with those bearing on the Registration Certificate initially issued, yet some other signatures of the registered owner are also figuring on the same. These signatures are apparently on the photostat copies of the various forms/ documents. These signatures do not at all bear any resemblance with those of the registered owner. 7. When the petitioner applied to the Registering Authority, Amritsar for registration of the vehicle in question in his name by way of transfer of ownership, he also filled in challan for an amount of Rs. 60,350/-. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner managed to get the stamp of the District Transport Officer, Amritsar affixed on the same but at no point of time any specific approval had been given so as to enable him to seek the allotment of a registration number of his choice. We have no reason to differ with the stand taken by the respondents. The petitioner has not been able to refer to any document from which it could be made out if the District Transport Officer, Amritsar had accepted his request for the allotment of a registration number of his choice. In such a situation, mere deposit of the amount in terms of Rule 42-A would not create any right in the petitioner to seek the assignment of a registration number of his choice. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to refund the amount received by them on account of his request for the allotment of a registration number of his choice.