Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 321 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Bihar

2012-03-01

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure-10), whereby the respondent No.2 has demanded road tax from the petitioner against the vehicle bearing registration No. BRM 7129 (Truck) for the period from 1.4.1998 to 31.12.1999 and for a direction that the petitioner is not liable for depositing the road tax and for further direction to the respondents to cancel the registration of the said vehicle. 2. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle bearing registration No. BRM 7129 is an old truck. Due to its breakdown it was not plying and its repair was not economical. A decision was, thus, taken to survey off the said vehicle and to auction the same. For that purpose the petitioner filed application before the District Transport Officer, Hazaribag praying for cancellation of registration of the said vehicle as far back as on 25.3.1998. But no order was passed by the District Transport Officer on the application in spite of repeated requests and representations. Suddenly the respondents issued the impugned demand notice dated 21.12.1999 to the petitioner asking to deposit road tax with fine for the period from 1.4.1998 amounting to Rs. 52,416/-. The petitioner contended that when the application for cancellation of registration of the vehicle was filed long back on 25.3.1998. There was no justification for demanding tax and fine. Since it was reported that the vehicle was not plying, it is under break-down and request was made for cancellation of registration certificate, the respondents should have cancelled registration. The petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of road tax and, as such, the demand notice dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure-10) is wholly arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed. 3. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been, inter-alia, contended that for the purpose of cancellation the petitioner was required to submit all the documents relating to the said vehicle but in spite of letter issued to them, the required documents were not submitted. In absence of the requisite documents no order was passed on the petitioner's request for cancellation of registration. So long the registration of the vehicle is not cancelled, the petitioner is liable to pay the road tax. When the petitioner failed to deposit the road tax, the said demand notice was served on them. In absence of the requisite documents no order was passed on the petitioner's request for cancellation of registration. So long the registration of the vehicle is not cancelled, the petitioner is liable to pay the road tax. When the petitioner failed to deposit the road tax, the said demand notice was served on them. There is no arbitrariness and illegality in the said notice and the petitioner is liable for depositing the amount of the demand notice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. On perusal of Annexure-3 dated 25.3.1998 I find that the petitioner had filed application before the District Transport Officer, Hazaribag requesting him to cancel registration certificate of the truck bearing registration No. BRM 7129. In the said application it was clearly mentioned that the original registration certificate book, Tax Book, Tax Token, Insurance Certificate of the truck were also enclosed with the application. According to the respondents, those documents were returned to the petitioner at the time of receiving application and was also mentioned in the margin of the application dated 25.3.1998 (Annexure-3). 5. On perusal of Annexure-3, I find that there is no such mention in the application. In the margin, there is only an endorsement marking the application to M.V.I. with a direction to examine the vehicle and report. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is no provision for any inspection by the M.V.I. for cancellation of registration, the cancellation order was not passed on the ground that M.V.I. had not submitted his report. The said ground is not a valid in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act). 7. Learned counsel referred to the relevant provisions contained in Section 55 of the said Act, which provides for cancellation of registration. 8. Section 55 of the said Act reads as follows :- “Cancellation of registration.--(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. (2) The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration. (3) Any registering authority may order the examination of a motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by such authority as the State Government may be 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 to 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. (4) If a registering authority is satisfied that a motor vehicle has been permanently removed out of India the registering authority shall cancel the registration. (5) If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as 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), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration. (6) A registering authority canceling the registration of a motor vehicle under Section 54 or under this section shall communicate such fact in writing to the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. (6) A registering authority canceling the registration of a motor vehicle under Section 54 or under this section shall communicate such fact in writing to the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. (7) A registering authority making an order of cancellation under Section 54 or under this section shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the vehicle in its records, and, if it is not the original registering authority , forward the certificate of registration to that authority, and that authority shall cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the motor vehicle in its records. (8) The expression “original registering authority” in this section and in sections 41, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 means the registering authority in whose records the registration of the vehicle is recorded. (9) In this section, “certificate of registration” includes a certificate of registration renewed under the provisions of this Act.” 9. On plain reading of the said provision of Section 55 it is clear that the owner of any registered vehicle may apply for cancellation of certificate of registration of the vehicle. After receipt of the application the registering authority shall cancel the registration and the certificate of the registration or shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration. 10. Though Sub-Section (3) provides for power of any registering authority to examine the motor vehicle within its jurisdiction, it does not say that on the application for cancellation of registration by the owner such examination is mandatory. 11. Sub-Section (3) of Section 55 gives power to any registering authority to cancel registration, if 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 cause danger to the public and that it is beyond reasonable repair. 12. In the instant case the petitioner had clearly mentioned in its application that the vehicle is under break down and it is beyond reasonable repair. When the said information was given, there was no occasion for any such examination by the concerned authority and the registering authority should have passed order on the petitioner's application. 13. 12. In the instant case the petitioner had clearly mentioned in its application that the vehicle is under break down and it is beyond reasonable repair. When the said information was given, there was no occasion for any such examination by the concerned authority and the registering authority should have passed order on the petitioner's application. 13. In stead of doing so, the registering authority endorsed the application to M.V.I. asking him to inspect the vehicle. 14. There is nothing on record to show that even the M.V.I. submitted any contrary report. 15. In view of the above, not passing any order on the petitioner's application for a long time and demanding road tax cannot be said to be justified, particularly, when the petitioner had reported that the vehicle is under break down and there is no report that it was plying on the road. 16. Further sitting over the petitioner's application for cancellation of registration for such a long time and demanding road tax and fine is arbitrary and unjust. 17. It was the duty of the registering authority to pass order on receipt of the application when all the documents were enclosed with the application. 18. Learned G.A. submitted that the documents enclosed with the application were returned to the petitioner and thereafter in spite of the letters, documents were not produced. The petitioner emphatically denied to have taken the documents back. There is nothing on record to show that the documents were returned to the petitioner. It also does not appeal to the reason that when the documents were submitted for the said purpose, why the documents would be returned before passing any order by the registering authority. 19. In view of the above, the demand notice dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure-10) issued to the petitioner without any justification, cannot sustain and is, hereby, quashed. The respondent No.2-District Transport Officer, Hazaribag is directed to pass order on the petitioner's application for cancellation of registration of the said vehicle, if not already passed, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 20. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.