Petitioner's purchase of a condemned vehicle under auction did not entitle him to seek renewal of its registration after completion of 15 years, as it was expressly prohibited by the applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

1. The petitioner purchased a Mahindra Jeep, 2007 model, bearing registration No. KL-01/AQ-5563, in an auction conducted on 08.11.2023 by Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC) for the sale of confiscated and condemned vehicles as per the auction advertisement dated 11.01.2023. The petitioner was confirmed as the highest bidder and remitted the sale consideration to the account of the 1^st respondent, whereupon MSTC issued Ext.P2 delivery order dated 01.12.2023.

2. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 proceedings dated 01.12.2023 directing the Assistant Wildlife Warden, Tholpetty, to hand over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The vehicle had a valid registration from 28.04.2007 to 27.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to apply before the 2^nd respondent for renewal of the certificate of registration, the vehicle having completed fifteen years of age, and also sought transfer of ownership in his name in accordance with Rule 59 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. However, the petitioner was unable to remit the required fee online as access was denied on account of Ext.P5 letter dated 10.08.2023 issued by the office of the Transport Commissioner pursuant to Ext.P6 notification dated 16.01.2023 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which amended the CMV Rules incorporating Rule 52A, directing all Heads of Departments not to permit Government vehicles which have completed fifteen years of age to be used on public roads and the registration certificate of Government vehicle shall expire after the lapse of 15 years and the disposal of such vehicles is required to be ensured through registered vehicles scraping facility set up in accordance with Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2021.

2.1. The petitioner contends that the said notifications do not apply to the vehicle purchased by him, as the vehicle was not intended to be scrapped but was sold through e-auction. It is submitted that Ext.P1 auction notification describes the vehicle as a confiscated vehicle and does not indicate that the vehicle was to be sold as scrap. The petitioner further relies on instances where vehicles older than fifteen years were permitted renewal of registration. In this regard, reference is made to a vehicle bearing registration No. KLK-8939, whose registration was renewed by the Assistant Registering Authority, Koduvally, on 03.12.2019. Similarly, another light motor vehicle manufactured in the year 1997 bearing registration No. KL-11-G-4660 had its registration renewed for the period from 03.01.2018 to 02.01.2023 by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, these instances demonstrate that there is no absolute prohibition against renewal of registration of light motor vehicles even after completion of fifteen years. The petitioner, therefore, contends that believing there would be no impediment in the transfer of ownership and renewal of registration, he purchased the vehicle at auction, but the 2^nd respondent is now refusing to effect the transfer or renew the registration.

2.2. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept the application and fee for transfer of the certificate of registration and to renew the registration of the vehicle, and further seeks a declaration that Exts.P5 and P6 are inapplicable to the vehicle purchased by him through e-auction.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Forest Conservator and Wildlife Warden, Wayanad Wildl