JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by the District Transport Officer, Registration, Jodhpur (`DTO`) and judgment dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (`RTA'). 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitioner purchased a tractor on 21.2.2000 from one Iliyas Khan said to be sub-dealer. The vehicle was registered under Section 37 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act') on 29.9.2001; it appears that a FIR came to be lodged by one Joga Ram claiming himself to be the dealer of the tractor and alleging therein that he had an arrangement with Iliyas Khan as sub-dealer, who has sold the tractors and has not paid the consideration. Alongwith filing of the said FIR, it appears that the proceedings were also initiated before the Registering Authority. The DTO by notice dated 6.8.2002 called upon the petitioner to show cause that a complaint has been received by him that Form No.22 produced for registration was not issued by the manufacturer and in case, reply was not filed, action under Section 55(5) of the Act would be taken. 3. The petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted that the matter pertains to dispute between Iliyas Khan & Joga Ram and petitioner being bonafide purchaser having purchased the tractor after obtaining loan from Bhumi Vikas Bank, Branch Phalodi cannot be made to suffer on account of the said aspect. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not indicated any wrong material particulars and therefore, power under Section 55(5) of the Act cannot be exercised. 4. The DTO by his order dated 9.9.2002 based on letter dated 23.8.2002 received from the marketing division of the manufacturer wherein it was indicated that Form No.22 was not issued by the said manufacturer and on coming to the conclusion that Form No.21 was not valid, exercising powers under Section 55(5) of the Act cancelled the registration. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 57 of the Act before the RTA, Jodhpur. The RTA after hearing the petitioner and Joga Ram, who appeared as Caveator, came to the conclusion that the registration was obtained based on wrong documents and as the order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing, no interference was called for and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 6. The RTA after hearing the petitioner and Joga Ram, who appeared as Caveator, came to the conclusion that the registration was obtained based on wrong documents and as the order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing, no interference was called for and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the dispute before the Registering Authority was raised by Joga Ram only on account of inter se dispute between him and Iliyas Khan, who in his own version was the sub-dealer and the petitioner being bonafide purchaser cannot be made to suffer on account of any wrong doing allegedly done by said Iliyas Khan. The petitioner has obtained loan from the Bank and has purchased the tractor and if the order as passed by the DTO and the RTA are allowed to be sustained, the same would result in total injustice to the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that no case for exercise of power under Section 55 of the Act has been made out, inasmuch as, it cannot be said that the registration was obtained based on incorrect material particulars and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 8. It was further submitted that though the notice dated 6.8.2002 pertained to Form No.22, while passing the order, the DTO has held that Form No.21 also was incorrect. A further plea was raised that so-called report dated 23.8.2002, which has formed the basis for the passing of the order dated 9.9.2002 was never supplied to the petitioner and on that count, the order passed by the DTO as upheld by the RTA cannot be sustained. 9. Reliance was placed on Prakash Chand Mehta v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh 38 . 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the order dated 9.9.2002 has been passed by the DTO after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and once it was proved on record that Form No.21 and Form No.22 produced by the petitioner for registration of the vehicles were not genuine, the power under Section 55(5) of the Act was rightly exercised by the DTO and the order was rightly upheld by the RTA. It was submitted the very fact that forged documents have been produced, the power under Section 55(5) can be exercised and it cannot be said that the registration was not obtained by giving out false material particulars. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 12. The must material aspect of the matter is the version of Joga Ram, who lodged complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was registered as FIR (Annex.1 dated 3.6.2002). In the said FIR, three material paragraphs read as under:- " 4- ;g gS fd bfy;kl eksgEen ds bl rjg ds izLrko o fo'okl ds vk/kkj ij eSaus bldk QeZ eSllZ ,f'k;k ,xzks lsYl QykSnh dks viuh dEiuh dh rjQ ls lc Mhyjf'ki ns nh ftldk fyf[kr fn;k x;kA ml dh QksVks izfr is'k djrk gwaA 5- ;g gS fd esjh dEiuh }kjk bfy;kl eksgEen QykSnh dh QeZ dks pkj Vs~DVj fnukad 1-1-2000 fcy la[;k 79 Vs~DVj fnukad 2-2-2000 dks fcy la[;k 80] Vs~DVj fnukad 27-2-2000 fcy la[;k 81 fnukad 24-3-2000 fcy la[;k 90 dks bl rF; ds lkFk lqiqnZ fd, x, fd og mUgsa QykSnh ys tkdj cspdj jde eq>s tek djk nsxk ftu pkjksa Vs~DVjksa dks lqiqnZ djus dk fyf[kr Hkh fy;k x;k ftldh izfr layXu is'k gSA 10- ;g gS fd pkjksa VS~DVj eSaus tSrkj.k xksnke ls fnukad 1-1-2000] fnukad 2-2-2000] 27-2-2000] 24-3-2000 dks tfj, ckmpj o jlhnksa dks bfy;kl [kkWa dks cspus ds fy, lqiqnZ fd;s Fks] ftuds fcdrs gh jde eq>s tek djkuh Fkh] exj mlus egt eq>s /kks[kk nsus ds fy, ;g vijkf/kd ukVd jpdj >wBk lc Mhyj cudj esjh dEiuh dks V~sDVj eq>ls ls tkdj mudk oS/k fcy ds csp dj jde gM+i dj x;kA " 13. From the averments of the above FIR, it is apparent that Iliyas Khan was sub-dealer of Joga Ram, the bills pertaining to the tractors were handed-over by Joga Ram to said Iliyas Khan for selling the tractors and a specific averment has been made that the tractors were sold by valid bills in para 10 of the FIR. 14. From the averments of the above FIR, it is apparent that Iliyas Khan was sub-dealer of Joga Ram, the bills pertaining to the tractors were handed-over by Joga Ram to said Iliyas Khan for selling the tractors and a specific averment has been made that the tractors were sold by valid bills in para 10 of the FIR. 14. From the said averments, the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the matter essentially pertained to dispute between Iliyas Khan, the subdealer and Joga Ram, the dealer, and the same had essentially nothing to do with the petitioner, who was a bonafide purchaser of the tractor from Iliyas Khan appears to be correct. 15. A look at the notice (Annex.3) dated 6.8.2002 reveals that the notice was issued based on the complaint confined to the fact that Form No.22 was allegedly not issued by the manufacturer and the petitioner was called upon to answer the same. Whereafter, the petitioner appeared before the DTO and during the pendency of the proceedings, a letter dated 23.8.2002 appears to have been received by the DTO from the marketing division of the manufacturer disputing the genuineness of Form No.22. The said aspect regarding the document Form No.22 being not genuine appears to be in total contrast to the first version made by Joga Ram by way of his FIR dated 3.6.2002, wherein at more than one place he has indicated about the transfer of vehicle by Iliyas Khan based on valid documents and bills. 16. It is also important to notice that notice Annex.-3 was issued on 6.8.2002 and the document dated 23.8.2002 was received by the DTO during the pendency of the proceedings and despite a specific objection raised by the petitioner regarding non-service of the said document dated 23.8.2002, no material has been placed on record to indicate that the same was supplied to the petitioner providing him opportunity to meet with the said document. The DTO has without even discussing the plea raised by the petitioner in his response to the show cause notice has taken the letter dated 23.8.2002, which was as noticed here-in-before was not even supplied to the petitioner as the gospel truth. 17. The DTO has without even discussing the plea raised by the petitioner in his response to the show cause notice has taken the letter dated 23.8.2002, which was as noticed here-in-before was not even supplied to the petitioner as the gospel truth. 17. Further while the notice was confined to Form No.22, while deciding the material, the DTO has also held that Form No.21, which is the sale letter, is also false and unauthorised, which was not even the notice and is ex-facie contrary to the version of Joga Ram in his FIR, wherein he has specifically indicated the bill numbers and dates in para 5 of the complaint. 18. In view of the above, it is apparent that the DTO has passed the order dated 9.9.2002 in a pre-disposed manner without even considering the material and the plea raised by the petitioner. 19. A look at the provisions of Section 55(5) of the Act reveals that 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 or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registration authority after giving an opportunity to make representation, for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel the certificate. The requirement for exercise of power under Section 55(5) of the Act apparently is that the registration should have been obtained on the basis of documents which were false in any material particular. 20. As noticed here-in-before, the version of the complainant being available on record to indicate that the documents were handed-over by him to Iliyas Khan, who in-turn sold the vehicle to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the documents produced by the petitioner at the time of registration were false in material particulars. Further the document dated 23.8.2002, which has formed the foundation for passing of the order dated 9.9.2002 appears to be an exercise based on after thought and contrary to the plea having been already raised and without even confronting the petitioner with the said document. The judgment in the case of Prakash Chandra Mehta (supra) also lays down similar proposition. 21. In view thereof, the action of the DTO cannot be sustained. The judgment in the case of Prakash Chandra Mehta (supra) also lays down similar proposition. 21. In view thereof, the action of the DTO cannot be sustained. The rejection of the appeal by the RTA also suffers from the same fallacy as the reasoning given by the authority inasmuch as, only this aspect has been considered that the petitioner was allegedly given reasonable opportunity to represent his case, which in absence of supply of material document cannot be said to be a reasonable opportunity in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 22. It is noticed that the petitioner filed appeal before the RTA by impleading the DTO only as party, however, as Joga Ram had filed caveat, he was heard by DTO without impleading him as a party to the said proceedings. 23. In the writ petition, the said Joga Ram was impleaded as a party respondent alongwith Iliyas Khan as well. However, during the pendency of the petition, said Joga Ram died and it appears that as no steps were taken for bringing on record the legal representatives of Joga Ram and therefore, on account of passing of the peremptory order, the writ petition was directed to be rejected against the respondent No.4. However, thereafter, the writ petition was admitted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.2.2014. 24. In view of the fact that Joga Ram was not a party before the RTA and had appeared only as a Caveator and was heard, apparently on account of rejection of petition qua him cannot effect the maintainability of the present writ petition. 25. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.9.2002 (Annex.5) and judgment dated 26.11.2002 (Annex.8) are setaside. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******