Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manu
P. Vimalchand Bokadia – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.Manu, J.
First petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26909/2015 is an association of individuals engaged in financing of motor vehicles. It is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Second petitioner is a member of the 1st petitioner and he is doing hire-purchase finance business. Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.26015/2015 are also persons engaged in financing for motor vehicles.
2. Since the reliefs sought in these writ petitions are virtually the same, these cases were heard together.
3. Petitioners are aggrieved by Circular Nos.13/2011 dated 13.06.2011, 14/2011 dated 28.06.2011 and 19/2015 dated 22.07.2015 issued by the Transport Commissionerate, Thiruvananthapuram. In the first circular issued on 13.06.2011 the Transport Commissioner stated that the actions to be taken by the Motor Vehicles Department when motor vehicles are being registered and hire-purchase agreements are terminated are explained in Section 51 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 and Rules 60 and 61 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Endorsements are being made under Section 51 without examining the credentials of the financing companies. Such practices were causing difficulties to the veh
Administrative circulars cannot impose conditions exceeding statutory provisions, as seen with the Transport Commissioner's circulars that conflicted with the Motor Vehicles Act.
Circulars imposing additional registration requirements on financiers contravene the Motor Vehicles Act, as statutory provisions cannot be overridden by executive orders.
Administrative circulars cannot impose conditions not present in the statute; any amendments must be made through legislative processes.
Motor Vehicle - Power/jurisdiction for assigning a new registration mark on a vehicle - Assignment of new registration mark but deem it proper to reiterate that if vehicle once registered in any Stat....
State Government lacks authority to impose vehicle age limit for permit issuance under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; such power is vested solely with the Central Government.
The State Government lacks authority to issue circulars imposing vehicle age limits for permit renewals, a power reserved for the Central Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The court held that demo vehicles used for demonstration purposes under trade certificates are exempt from registration, rejecting the circular that contradicted statutory provisions.
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
The Transport Commissioner has the authority to issue regulations for driving tests that align with the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, emphasizing public safety.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
