Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 324 (HP)

Diwan Chand v. State of H. P.

2014-04-01

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner purchased two trucks bearing registration Nos. HR68-7594 and HR37B-2594 vide sale and purchase agreements, Annexures P-1 and P-2. Petitioner produced these trucks before the Regional Transport Officer, Shimla on 7.11.2012 for registration. These trucks were not registered due to investigation in FIR No.17/2011, under Sections 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. According to the reply filed by the respondent-State, the trucks were found involved in illegal transportation of red sandal wood to Jeori. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake of convenience) deals with registration of motor vehicles. How registration of the vehicles is to be made is provided under Section 41 of the Act. Section 45 of the act deals with refusal of registration or removal of the certificate of registration. Section 45 reads as under:- “45. Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration. – The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal.” 3. From the plain reading of section 45 of the Act, it is evident that the registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or the applicant fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle. It is also provided under Section 45 of the Act that the registering authority shall furnish the applicant, whose vehicle is refused registration, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal. 4. It is not the case of the respondent-State that the vehicles are stolen or are mechanically defective or the petitioner has violated provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder. It has not been averred in the reply filed by the respondent-State that the petitioner has failed to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicles or furnished inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicles. Merely that investigation is going in a case FIR No.17/2011, the registering authority could not deny registration of the vehicles. The registration of the vehicles could be denied only on the grounds/reasons stipulated in Section 45 of the Act. New ground/reason cannot be read into Section 45 of the Act, which is not expressly provided. 5. The petitioner was also required to be sent a copy of the order assigning reasons for refusal of the registration to the vehicles. The registering authority cannot withhold the registration, as noticed above, only on the ground of registration of the FIR. The moment the conditions are satisfied, the registering authority is duty bound to issue registration certificate of the vehicles. 6. Learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in The Chairman, Calicut-Wyanad Motor Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 Kerala 21 while interpreting Section 27 of the Act has held as under:- 8. The moment the conditions are satisfied, the registering authority is duty bound to issue registration certificate of the vehicles. 6. Learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court in The Chairman, Calicut-Wyanad Motor Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 Kerala 21 while interpreting Section 27 of the Act has held as under:- 8. An analysis of the provisions of the Central Excise Act would clearly bring out that the duty is payable by one assessed to it; and it is to be recovered from the person liable to pay. The mode of recovery is indicated in Section 11 of the Act. Rules have been framed as regards recovery. No other mode is visualized in the enactment. If Parliament has not provided for any other mode of recovery, it is not open to the authorities to add to its channels or widen it beyond the pre-ordained embankments. The Collector has evinced unjustified though possibly bona fide exuberance of enthusiasm while resorting to a recovery method not sanctioned by law. He cannot, by persuasion or by pressure, make another statutory functionary do an act which that authority does not possess the power to do under the statute under which it functions. As far as the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned, he is bound to give registration to a vehicle when the pre-conditions set in Section 27 are complied with by the person seeking registration. It is beyond the power of the Registering Authority to oversee about the due observance of other laws, including other tax laws, by a person seeking registration, when from the point of view of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no objection or impediment to the grant of registration. The registering Authority cannot withhold registration, for the non-payment of excise duty or other tax. That is, however, what has been attempted by the first respondent. The approach is not legal or proper………..” 7. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to register the vehicles of the petitioner within a period of three weeks after receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.