Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1237 (PAT)

Chhote Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2009-09-14

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is limiting his prayer for quashing of the order dated 8.4.2009 of the District Transport Officer, Darbhanga, by which registration of his vehicle bearing BR-7P/1892 has been cancelled under Sections 55(1) and (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The fact of the case, in short, is as follows: The petitioner is owner of Tata Magic Taxi bearing Registration No. BR-7P-1892. The District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate issued notice dated 29.3.2009, contained in Annexure-A of the counter affidavit, requisitioning the aforesaid vehicle for Parlimentary Election 2009. The notice could not be served on the petitioner as his father informed the process servant that former is in Delhi. Again another requisition notice was sent in name of vehicle owner vide Letter No. 384 dated 7.4.2009. The petitioner refused to receive the notice. The peon carrying notice informed that the petitioner refused to receive the notice. He also reported that inmates of the house informed that vehicle is not in order. 4. The District Transport Officer, Darbhanga, cancelled the registration of the vehicle of the petitioner under Sections 55(1) and (3) of the Act. The petitioner states that registration of the vehicle was cancelled wihtout giving an opportunity of hearing and following the procedure prescribed under Sections 55(1) & (3) of the Act. 5. Counsel for the State submits that as the family members of the petitioner had themselves informed that the vehicle in question is out of order, the authorities did not err in canceling the registration on the aforesaid ground in view of Sections 55(1) and (3) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioner did not respond to the requisition notice which was also a ground for cancellation of registration of the vehicle under Sections 55(1) & (3) of the Act. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be important to notice the provisions of cancellation of registration. Section 55 deals with cancellation of registration. The various sub-sections enumerate the grounds on which registration of a vehicle can be cancelled. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be important to notice the provisions of cancellation of registration. Section 55 deals with cancellation of registration. The various sub-sections enumerate the grounds on which registration of a vehicle can be cancelled. As the impugned order was passed under Sections 55(1) & (3) of the Act, it would be relevant to quote the aforesaid provisions: "55(1) If a motor vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as soon as may be, report the fact to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. (3) Any registering authority may order of examination of a motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by such authority as the State Government may by order appoint and, if, upon such examination and after giving the owner an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), it is satisfied that the vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and that it is beyond reasonable repair, may cancel the registration." 7. Section 55(1) casts an obligation on the owner to immediately inform the registering authority if the vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of being used. On receipt of such information and if the vehicle is found to be destroyed or rendered permanently incapable of use, the registering authority can cancel the same under Section 55(2) of the Act. Section 55(3) of the Act empowers the registering authority to examine a motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by a competent person after giving due notice to the owner of the vehicle. If after examination of the vehicle, the registering authority is satisfied that vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, and that it is beyond reasonable repair, he may cancel the registration. 8. If after examination of the vehicle, the registering authority is satisfied that vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, and that it is beyond reasonable repair, he may cancel the registration. 8. From bare perusal of Section 55(3) of the Act, it appears that if a vehicle cannot be brought in use in any more, or it cannot be reasonably repaired, the registration can be cancelled. In other words, if a vehicle can be reasonably repaired and can be brought in use the registration of such vehicle cannot be cancelled. It is a common knowledge that a motor vehicle which is mechanically operated is open to wear and tear. The engines, electrical components, the body parts including tyres etc. would need repairs, over hauling or replacements. Only when the registering authority is satisfied that the repair of the vehicle is beyond comprehension and it cannot be any further brought in use, its registration can be cancelled. If a defect or snag is such which can be repaired and removed. the registration ought not to be cancelled. Furthermore, if the condition of a vehicle is such that its use in public place would constitute a danger to the public, the registration of the vehicle can be cancelled. 9. In the instant case, admittedly there is no finding that the condition of the vehicle was such that it cannot be repaired and brought in use. Nor there is any finding that condition of vehicle is such that its use in public place would constitute a danger to public. The authorities did not order examination of the vehicle to satisfy itself that it suffered from any of the disabilities mentioned in Sections 55(1) & (3) of the Act. Mere statement that the vehicle is not in order, would not attract the provisions of Sections 55(1) & (3) of the Act in absence of finding that the vehicle is either beyond repair or its use is danger to the public life or is incapable of being used. 10. The next issue is whether registration of a vehicle can be cancelled for the failure of its owner to make the same available pursuant to the requisition made for public purposes. 10. The next issue is whether registration of a vehicle can be cancelled for the failure of its owner to make the same available pursuant to the requisition made for public purposes. The case of the petitioner is that on 1.4.2009 a requisition order was issued requisitioning the vehicle of the petitioner for the purpose of election under Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951) read with Government of Bihar Notification No. 182-C dated 11.1.1957. The Peon carrying the requisition returned the same with his comment that the petitioners father stated that former is away at Delhi. Again an explanation letter was sent to the owner on 8.4.2009 which he did not receive rather one of the family members stated that the vehicle is not in order. 11. It is not in dispute that the registering authority did not get the vehicle examined to ascertain whether there was a mechanical snag which could be easily repaired or whether the vehicle was beyond repair or incapable of being use, which was imperative in view of Section 55(3) of the Act. Mere statement of one of the family members that the vehicle is out of order would not necessarily mean that vehicle was suffering from any of the disabilities mentioned in Section 55(3) of the Act. 12. This brings us to the core issue that if the owner of the vehicle evades to accept requisition notice or if he deliberately does not make the vehicle available despite knowledge that the requisition order has been issued for the same, whether the registration of the vehicle can be cancelled or not. 13. As noted above, the registration of a vehicle can be cancelled only if grounds mentioned in Section 55 of the Act stand satisfied. Section 55 of the Act does not provide that if a vehicle owner does not make his vehicle available pursuant to the requisition notice under Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act read with Bihar Government Notification No. 182-C dated 11.1.1957, the registration of the vehicle can be cancelled. The owner of the vehicle is obliged to make the vehicle available iref the same is requisitioned for election purposes under the aforesaid provisions and for non-compliance he can be appropriately proceeded with under the Representation of the People Act or any other law. The owner of the vehicle is obliged to make the vehicle available iref the same is requisitioned for election purposes under the aforesaid provisions and for non-compliance he can be appropriately proceeded with under the Representation of the People Act or any other law. However, no provision has been brought to the notice of this court showing that registration of a vehicle is liable to be cancelled if the owner does not make his vehicle available pursuant to the requisition notice for election purposes. 14. The alleged offence and act of defiance would not give rope to the authorities to cancel the registration of the vehicle under Section 55 of the Act. As such, the impugned order canceling the registration of the vehicle under Sections 55(1) & (3) of the Act is bad in law and is set aside. As a consequence, the authorities are directed to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on furnishing personal bond. 15. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.