Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 408 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Indrajeet Kumar

2014-04-03

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2014
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Though served, the respondent has not entered appearance. 2. This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent-State of Bihar against the order dated 7th July 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 5805 of 2011. 3. The respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 5805 of 2011 to challenge the Government Notification dated 8th March 2011, issued in exercise of power conferred by section 65 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). According to the writ petitioner, he was the intending buyer of a motor vehicle and that the aforesaid Notification was issued in contravention of Section 44 of the Act. 4. The learned single Judge has upheld the challenge to the said Notification. Learned single Judge has held that it is the Motor Vehicles Inspector alone, who is authorized to inspect the motor vehicles and to certify the facts related to the registration of the motor vehicle. The impugned Notification was, thus, issued in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. Learned Principal Additional Advocate General, Mr. Lalit Kishore, has appeared for the appellant-State of Bihar. He has relied upon sections 44 & 65 (2)(b) of the Act. He has submitted that the matter at issue is the registration of Non-transport Vehicles by the registering authority. Under section 44 of the Act, the registering authority is enjoined to satisfy itself that the particulars contained in the application form are true. He has submitted that for recording satisfaction, inspection of the vehicle is required. The owners of the vehicles are, therefore, required to bring the vehicles before the registering authority. With a view to relieving the owners of the burden of bringing the vehicles before the registering authority, the State Government has, in exercise of power conferred by section 65(2)(b) of the Act, issued the impugned Notification dated 8th March 2011. 6. We will first examine the contents of the impugned Notification dated 8th March 2011. The impugned Notification has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by section 65(2) (b) of the Act. Under the impugned Notification, the power of certification under section 44 of the Act has been transferred to the nominee of the Dealers. 6. We will first examine the contents of the impugned Notification dated 8th March 2011. The impugned Notification has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by section 65(2) (b) of the Act. Under the impugned Notification, the power of certification under section 44 of the Act has been transferred to the nominee of the Dealers. For registration of a motor vehicle, the owner is required to make application in statutory form no. XX. The particulars furnished in the said form are required to be verified and certified to be true. Thus far such verification and certification was made by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The said power is now, under the impugned Notification, conferred upon the nominee of the Dealers. 7. We will first examine whether section 65 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue such an order. Section 65 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act. Chapter IV of the Act provides for registration of motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) of section 65 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to provide, interalia, for “the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of registering and other prescribed authorities”. The first thing that we have noticed is though the impugned Notification has been issued in purported exercise of power conferred by section 65 (2)(b) of the Act, the said Notification can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be the rules as envisaged by section 65 of the Act. 8. Section 44 of the Act provides for production of vehicle at the time of registration. It empowers the registering authority, interalia, to require the person applying for registration of the vehicle (Non-transport Vehicle) to produce the vehicle either before itself or “such authority as the State Government may, by order, appoint in order that the registering authority may satisfy itself that the particulars contained in the application form are true and that the vehicle complies with requirements of this Act and of the rules made thereunder”. The intention of the Parliament is clear and unambiguous. It is the registering authority which is enjoined to inspect the vehicle to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the information about the vehicle passed over. The intention of the Parliament is clear and unambiguous. It is the registering authority which is enjoined to inspect the vehicle to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the information about the vehicle passed over. In the alternative, the registering authority may rely upon the authority which the State Government may by order appoint. It is the statutory mandate that the registering authority shall record its satisfaction. The satisfaction may be arrived at by the registering authority itself or the registering authority may rely upon such other authority which the State Government may appoint. Thus, it is the legislative mandate that such authority be appointed by the State Government. The State Government has not been vested with the power of delegation. In our opinion, it is the function of the State Government and the State Government alone to appoint authority for the purpose of section 44 of the Act. It is obvious that the impugned order dated 8th March 2011 has been made in exercise of the aforesaid power conferred by section 44 of the Act. However, instead of making order for appointment of such other authority, the State Government has passed over the responsibility of making appointment of such other authority to the dealers of the vehicles. In other words, the State Government has abdicated its duty to appoint such other authority for the purpose of section 44 of the Act and has delegated the power to the dealers of the motor vehicles. The order is made ex facie in contravention of section 44 of the Act. The impugned Notification is, therefore, ultra virus section 44 of the Act and calls for interference by this Court. It has rightly been quashed by the learned single Judge. 9. We see no merit in this Appeal. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. 10. I.A. stands disposed of.