Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
M/S BIKES AUTO – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 11902 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: RAMKRISHNA B. DAVE.
For the Respondent: DHWANI TRIPATHI.
Headnote:
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 45, 33, 39 to 44, 52 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 39 - Trade Certificate has been suspended - Delivered vehicles to a purchaser without registration - Challenged initial order passed by which, Trade Certificate granted to petitioner has been suspended for a period of six months - Aggrieved by order so passed of suspension, petitioner filed an appeal, appeal has been rejected – Held, Reading of affidavit which essentially is translated version of suspension order indicates that authorities have come to a conclusion that because of agency having issued tax invoices during currency of period of suspension of 15 days by virtue of order of suspension has delivered vehicles to a purchaser without registration whether temporary or permanent - When Rule 52 of Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules is read in context of Rule 42 of CMV Rules, issuance of invoice proceeds procedure for applying for a temporary registration certificate it can be done only based on a original sale certificate annexed to such application - Unless that incident happens, obviously there cannot be a delivery of a vehicle to a purchaser without jurisdiction - Essentially therefore, reasonings on order indicate that “reason to believe that suspended authority has arrived at for breach of rules so enacted in order or beyond apprehension and not having a nexus with rules that is sought to be invoked”- Order of suspension and order of Appellate Authority are hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. R.B. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, Bikes Auto Ltd. an authorized dealer of M/s. Hero Moto Corp Ltd. has challenged the initial order passed by the regional Transport Officer dated 05.04.2022, by which, the Trade Certificate granted to the petitioner has been suspended for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the order so passed of suspension, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 45 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (for short “CMV” Rules), 1989. By an order of 31.05.2022, the appeal has been rejected, hence the petition.
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner, initially had a Trade Certificate No. GJ-01-TC-766 and 767 for the period from 02.04.2021 to 02.04.2022. The same was subsequently renewed for the period from 07.04.2022 to 07.04.2023. By the impugned order of suspension dated 05.04.2022, the Regional Transport Officer, on allegations made in the order of suspension, suspended the Trade Certificate for the period of six months from the date of the order. The suspension period having run its life, normally would result in disposal of this petition without adjudication on merits; however, as the order has been passed based on an earlier period where the petitioner’s Trade Certificate was suspended and during the currency of that suspension, according to the respondents some breaches have occurred has the suspension so resulted.
2.1 Essentially on facts what is the perception of the Regional Transport Officer in suspending the Trade Certificate is that the petitioner has committed breach of Rules 39 to 44 of the CMV Rules, 1989.
3. Mr. R.B. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the contents of the order of suspension would indicate that the authority had no basis on which such a suspension order could have been passed to suspend the Trade Certificate for dealing in vehicles and assailing the same was not within the domain of Rule 44 of the CMV Rules, 1989, as no delivery has taken place because the same can only happen after granting of a temporary registration under Rule 52(3)(a) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988.
3.1 Mr. Dave, learned counsel, would extensively read out Rules 38 to 44 of the Rules, namely, the CMV Rules, 1989, and submit that the order of suspension is without authority of law, without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP, would vehemently oppose the petition and justify the order of suspension so passed against the petitioner. Reading the affidavit, Ms. Tripathi, learned AGP, would indicate that initially the Trade Certificate granted for the period from 02.04.2021 to 02.04.2022 was suspended vide order dated 17.08.2021. On an appeal being filed by the petitioner, the period of suspension was reduced to 15 days from period of 20 days. During the currency of this suspension period of 15 days, the petitioner could not have registered or delivered any new vehicle. It is the case of the authorities that when the suspension of the petitioner was in vogue as is evident from the tax invoices annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner delivered two wheelers by multiple invoices especially in the same names, and therefore, created a mischief.
4.1 For instance, the affidavit-in-reply indicates that on 22.08.2021 for one customer Sanjiv Kumar Thakore, two invoices were issued in the name of the same person on 22.08.2021 and 06.09.2021. What also is required to be noted according to Ms. Tripathi, learned AGP, is that the petitioner cheated the State Government by not paying tax at the relevant point of time and delivered 81 vehicles without temporary registration. This in the perception of the authorities was in violation of the CMV Rules, 1989 and the suspension, therefore, was justified. She would, therefore, submit that the order rejecting the appeal too was just and proper.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective p
