Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 588 (MP)

Mahendra Gupta v. State of M. P.

2024-08-30

ANAND PATHAK

body2024
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to allow this petition and order impugned dated 18.06.2024 (Annex.P-1) alongwith impugned seizer: (Annex.P-5) may kindly be set-aside by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, in the interest of justice. Any other deems fit and proper in the facts and_ circumstances of the case may kindly be passed by awarding the cost of petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice” 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a tourist bus operator and doing the business of Transportation of Tourists in India by his own tourist buses. Petitioner owned tourist vehicle bearing No. UP -95 T 5127 which was initially registered with Regional Transport Officer (RTO) Mahoba (U.P.) and at present it is duly registered with RTO, Gwalior after NOC being issued from RTO, Mahoba. As submitted, petitioner's vehicle was having valid documents at the relevant time of checking/seizure of vehicle on 1.5.2024 under the jurisdiction of District Transport Officer and Registration Officer Jaipur -II and registration of vehicle was kept under suspension by DTO Jaipur exercising the power under section 53(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”). Therefore, petitioner is before this Court. 3. According to senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, impugned seizure of vehicle and suspension of registration is contrary to the provisions of sections 130 and 207 of the MV Act. It is further submitted that Chapter -IV of the MV Act as well as Chapter -IV of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”) provides provision for registration of vehicle, suspension of registration certificate, cancellation of registration certificate as well as issuance of certificate of fitness. By virtue of provisions of Section 65(2)(b) and (d) of the MV Act, State Government is empowered to prescribe any registering authority or other prescribed authority in the State for the purpose of carrying out the effect of the provisions of Chapter -IV of the MV Act including registration of motor vehicle and its suspension. Therefore, it covers the provision as contained in Sections 40, 53, 55 and 56 respectively of the MV Act. Therefore, it covers the provision as contained in Sections 40, 53, 55 and 56 respectively of the MV Act. Therefore, RTO/DTO/ARTO of Madhya Pradesh under rule 41 of the rules of 1994 are registering authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of carrying out effect of the provisions. Since vehicle was registered in Madhya Pradesh, therefore, DTO/RTO Jaipur (Rajasthan) had no authority to interfere in the matter by way of suspension of registration. DTO Jaipur -II (Rajasthan) is empowered to function as registration authority within the district Jaipur and he cannot operate in respect of vehicles which are being registered in Madhya Pradesh. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred different provisions under the MV Act and the rules of 1994 to bring home the fact that certificate of registration can only be suspended by any competent authority/prescribed authority at Madhya Pradesh. 5. It is further submitted that part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in term of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India in Gwalior within territorial jurisdiction of this Court because order of suspension of registration under Section 53 of the MV Act was served on the petitioner at his residential address in Gwalior. Petitioner submitted his reply from Gwalior and realised the impact of suspension of registration at Gwalior. He relied upon the judgment of apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2000 SC 2966 and submits that it is bundle of facts as part of cause of action arises at Gwalior. 6. It is further submitted that section 52 of the MV Act has been wrongly interpreted by the respondent authority at Jaipur. Petitioner did not cause any change so as to attract the suspension of registration. He referred different parameters and tried to submit that vehicle was in conformity with the relevant rules and Regulations. Due to interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2023 in Writ Petition No.31263/2023 by this Court, annoyed the authority, thus precipitated the suspension of vehicle. He also referred order dated 11.12.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.189/2017 to submit that this Court has jurisdiction to pass the order. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and narrated the facts/events as unfolded. 8. Contesting respondent is respondent No.3. He also referred order dated 11.12.2016 passed in Writ Appeal No.189/2017 to submit that this Court has jurisdiction to pass the order. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and narrated the facts/events as unfolded. 8. Contesting respondent is respondent No.3. Shri Mody opposed the prayer and referred sections 53, 54 and 57 of the MV Act. According to him, section 53 of the MV Act deals in respect of suspension of registration. It contemplates that any registering authority or other prescribed authority if has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction contravenes any condition stipulated, then the said authority may after giving the owner an opportunity of making any representation, suspend the registration of vehicle. The word “any registering authority” stipulates that it can be respondent No.3 also. Therefore, respondent No.3 had the authority to suspend the registration of vehicle. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also raised the point regarding alternative remedy of appeal. As per Section 57 of the MV Act if registration is suspended, then petitioner has remedy of appeal. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto. 11. This is a case where petitioner is having registration by RTO, Gwalior. Its registration authority is RTO Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh). section 39 of the MV Act provides necessity for registration. According to section 40 of the MV Act, vehicle has to be registered by any registering authority in the State. Therefore, admittedly, registering authority of the vehicle of petitioner is of Madhya Pradesh. Registering authority is defined under section 2(37) of the MV Act which means an authority empowered to register motor vehicle under chapter -IV. Chapter -IV of the MV Act deals in respect of registration of motor vehicle. 12. It enlarges the scope of registering authority or other prescribed authority. The word “Any” in fact enlarges the scope to the extent where it is to be construed as any registering authority other than registering authority in the State as provided in section 40 of the MV Act. Section 40 of the MV Act provides registration by any registering authority in the State. Since its a matter of registration, therefore, it has to be a particular State where a person resides or having place of business where vehicle is normally kept. Section 40 of the MV Act provides registration by any registering authority in the State. Since its a matter of registration, therefore, it has to be a particular State where a person resides or having place of business where vehicle is normally kept. Therefore, that registering authority under section 40 of the MV Act would be registering authority of the particular State but once the registration is done and vehicle is plied under contract carriage/tourist permit etc., then it moves out of the State also and therefore, it has to comply the rules and regulations of the MV Act as well as rules and regulations of that particular State in which it is being plied. Therefore, section 53 of the MV Act in a way an endorsement of the situation of contravention or attracting penal provision outside State. Therefore, the word “any” finds place in the said provision. The legislative intent appears to be clear and unambiguous. If the condition of registration is not complied with or when acted contrary to the different provisions of the MV Act or when rules of that State are not followed, then certainly that registering authority which grants usually registration to the vehicle of that particular State, can come into effect by imposing such condition or by suspending the registration. 13. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that violation of the MV Act and Rules made thereunder, is the reason for suspension of registration of vehicle. Therefore, on the point of jurisdiction, the very provision appears to be luculently clear and does not leave any scope for ambiguity. In fact, perusal of section 53 of the MV Act reveals that the original registering authority is to be informed about the suspension. Perusal of section 53(3) of the MV Act indicates that when registration of motor vehicle has been suspended under subsection (1) for a continuous period of not less than one month, the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was, when the registration was suspended, shall if it is not the original registering authority inform that authority of the suspension. It means that power to suspension is available to that authority also which is not original registering authority but it is a registering authority other than the original authority. Here, the original registering authority is RTO, Gwalior and “any other registering authority” is RTO/DTO, Jaipur -II. It means that power to suspension is available to that authority also which is not original registering authority but it is a registering authority other than the original authority. Here, the original registering authority is RTO, Gwalior and “any other registering authority” is RTO/DTO, Jaipur -II. Therefore, registering authority at Jaipur can suspend the registration of vehicle and thereafter has to inform to the original registering authority i.e. RTO, Gwalior. 14. Therefore, on this count, contention of petitioner stands rejected. Impugned order does not suffer from the jurisdictional error. 15. Petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under section 57 of the MV Act. Petitioner raised the ground on merits regarding the fact that the vehicle under question was rule compliant. This Court cannot go into the merits of the case because it is for the registering/prescribed/appellate authority to look into the merits of the case and if vehicle is compliant to the rules, it is for the authority to take a call. Section 57 of the MV Act provides for appeal, therefore, petitioner has remedy of appeal where he can raise all these grounds which are being raised in the present case regarding compliance of requirements. 16. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition preferred by the petitioner is disposed of with the direction that petitioner may avail the remedy of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with law. 17. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.