Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1696 (RAJ)

Deepak S/o Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-12-12

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following relief(s): “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: - A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction any order passed by respondent authority in regard to not registered the vehicle of the petitioner on the basis of it is not with Emission Norms Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI). B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction any order passed by respondent authority in regard to not registered the vehicle of the petitioner on the basis of it is not with Emission Norms Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV). C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent may direct to register the vehicle of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was unable to register the vehicle due to same was under custody in the police. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondent may direct to register the vehicle of the petitioner which is with Emission Norms is Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV) while considering that at the time of purchased the vehicle Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV) is valid for registration. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, restrain the respondent authority to pass any order or any proceeding against the vehicle of the petitioner on the basis of not having registration. F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. G. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. Facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased vehicle (V-Cross) (BS-IV) on 16.01.2017 from Geeta Automobiles P. Ltd. with Chassis No.M3GTGS364GBB00979. The manufacturer company i.e. Issuzu Motors India P. Ltd. issued Form-22 (Initial certificate of compliance with pollution standards safety standards of components and worthiness) qua the vehicle in question. Thereafter on 16.01.2017 itself, the Registration Officer has issued temporary registration certificate of the vehicle (Annex.3) to the petitioner under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’). The petitioner had also purchased insurance policy qua the vehicle in question from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. having Policy No.2904013116p113826217. 3. Thereafter on 16.01.2017 itself, the Registration Officer has issued temporary registration certificate of the vehicle (Annex.3) to the petitioner under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’). The petitioner had also purchased insurance policy qua the vehicle in question from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. having Policy No.2904013116p113826217. 3. On 29.03.2017, an FIR No.36/2017 came to be registered against unknown persons while stating that in the vehicle in question opium was being illegally transported. During the course of investigation of the FIR (Annex.5) the vehicle in question was seized by the police. It is averred that since the petitioner’s vehicle was temporarily registered, the petitioner wish to get registration of the vehicle done, however, since the vehicle was seized in a criminal case, therefore, the registration of the vehicle could not be done. The petitioner had thereafter on various occasions approached the concerned authorities in order to get the vehicle registered, however, no heed was paid. 4. On 10.10.2022, the Special Judge, NDPS Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Rajsamand issued a communication (Annex.7) to the concerned SHO for handing over the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner and after the vehicle was released, the petitioner immediately approached the registering authority alongwith relevant documents and requested to register the vehicle, however, the registering authority refused to register the vehicle while saying that the vehicle emission norms is BS-IV and only BS-VI vehicle can be registered. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved of the non-registration of the vehicle had preferred the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the vehicle was seized in a criminal case lodged against unknown persons for illegally transporting the narcotic substance i.e. opium and remained under seizure from 29.03.2017 to 10.10.2022 with the police, therefore, the vehicle was not registered by the concerned authority. He further submits that the petitioner had made various efforts for getting the vehicle registered, however, the same was denied by the registering authority on the ground that the vehicle is seized in a criminal case and, therefore, registration could not be done. 7. He further submits that the petitioner had made various efforts for getting the vehicle registered, however, the same was denied by the registering authority on the ground that the vehicle is seized in a criminal case and, therefore, registration could not be done. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as soon as the vehicle was released in favour of petitioner on 10.10.2022 the petitioner again approached the respondent authorities along with requisite documents, but the concerned authority not only refused to accept the application filed by the petitioner, but also refused to register the vehicle on the ground that after the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2020, the petitioner’s vehicle being BS-IV, could not be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the action of the respondents in denying registration of petitioner’s vehicle is arbitrary and therefore, the respondents be directed to register petitioner’s vehicle. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner has till date not preferred any application for getting the vehicle registered. He submits that petitioner’s vehicle was temporarily registered for a period of one month while invoking Section 43 of the Act on 16.01.2017 and the period of one month came to end on 15.02.2017. He further submits that despite the period of one month being over, the petitioner has not preferred any application for getting the vehicle registered on ‘e-vahan portal’. Learned AAG further submits that under Section 43 of the Act, the petitioner was under an obligation to file requisite application on or before completion of one month of temporary registration. He further submits that under Section 44 (amended) of the Act, the vehicle was not required to be produced before the registering authority for the purpose of registration and petitioner’s contention that registration could not be done as the vehicle was seized by the police, is misconceived. 9. Learned AAG further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. : (Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.13029/1985) vide order dated 27.03.2020 had laid down certain guidelines while directing that the vehicles which are BS-IV, cannot be registered after the dead line of 31.03.2020. 9. Learned AAG further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. : (Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.13029/1985) vide order dated 27.03.2020 had laid down certain guidelines while directing that the vehicles which are BS-IV, cannot be registered after the dead line of 31.03.2020. He further submits that the earlier order was further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.08.2020 (Annex.R/5), wherein it has been again reiterated that registration of the vehicles post the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2020 shall not be allowed. Learned AAG further submits that there was a relaxation given by Hon’ble Apex Court only for those vehicles, which could not be registered during lock-down in the light COVID-19 pandemic. He submits that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle way back in the year 2017 and at that time, there was no COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, relaxation granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot be applied to petitioner’s case. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record and the case laws cited at bar. 11. This Court, upon perusal of Section 43 of the Act, finds that the registering authority is required to issue a temporary certificate of registration and temporary registration mark in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Central Government and admittedly vide Annex.3, the petitioner has been afforded temporary registration certificate for a period of one month on 16.01.2017. Section 43 of the Act reads as under: “43. Temporary registration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark. Temporary registration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issue in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark. (2) A registration made under this section shall be valid only for a period not exceeding one month, and shall not be renewable: Provided that where a motor vehicle so registered is a chassis to which a body has not been attached and the same is detained in a workshop beyond the said period of one month for being fitted [with a body or any unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the owner], the period may, on payment of such fees, if any, as may be prescribed, be extended by such further period or periods as the registering authority or other prescribed authority, as the case may be, may allow. [(3) In a case where the motor vehicle is held under hire-purchase agreement, lease or hypothecation, the registering authority or other prescribed authority shall issue a temporary certificate of registration of such vehicle, which shall incorporate legibly and prominently the full name and address of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into by the owner.]” 12. Upon perusal of Section 43 of the Act, it is abundantly clear that temporary registration has to be for a period of one month only i.e. not less than one month and not more than one month. Further, Section 39 of the Act provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this provision/chapter. The vehicle in question was seized in a criminal case and the petitioner even after expiry of temporary registration i.e. 15.02.2017 has not made any efforts to get the vehicle registered. Further, there is no application or document placed on record by the petitioner in order to show that in fact the application was preferred by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that that the vehicle was seized and, therefore, it cannot be registered. Further, there is no application or document placed on record by the petitioner in order to show that in fact the application was preferred by the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that that the vehicle was seized and, therefore, it cannot be registered. Further, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Mehta (supra) has specifically held that no vehicle being BS-IV can be registered after the cut off date i.e. 31.03.2020, though there is exception provided, however, petitioner’s case does not fall under the said exception. 13. This Court also finds that Section 44 (amended) of the Act does not provide production of the vehicle before the registering authority and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that as the vehicle was seized by the police and thus in absence of vehicle being produced before the concerned authority, the petitioner could not get the vehicle registered, is also not sustainable. The amended Section 44 of the Act reads as under: “44. (1) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf, a motor vehicle sold by an authorised dealer shall not require production before a registering authority for the purposes of registration for the first time. (2) Subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government, a person in whose name a certificate of registration has been issued shall not be required to produce the vehicle registered or transferred before a registering authority.” 14. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not filed any application for registration of the vehicle after expiry of one month of the temporary registration and thereafter also. Further, the vehicle of the petitioner being BS-VI cannot be permitted to be registered after the dead line, in the light of directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.C. Mehta (supra). The writ petition being devoid of any merit fails, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. Stay Petition also stands dismissed. No costs.