1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 9.9.2002 passed by the District Transport Officer, Registration, Jodhpur (`DTO`) and judgment dated 26.11.2002 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (`RTA').

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitioner purchased a tractor on 21.2.2000 from one Iliyas Khan said to be sub-dealer. The vehicle was registered under Section 37 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act') on 29.9.2001; it appears that a FIR came to be lodged by one Joga Ram claiming himself to be the dealer of the tractor and alleging therein that he had an arrangement with Iliyas Khan as sub-dealer, who has sold the tractors and has not paid the consideration. Alongwith filing of the said FIR, it appears that the proceedings were also initiated before the Registering Authority. The DTO by notice dated 6.8.2002 called upon the petitioner to show cause that a complaint has been received by him that Form No.22 produced for registration was not issued by the manufacturer and in case, reply was not filed, action under Section 55(5) of the Act would be taken.

3. The petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted that the matter pertains to dispute between Iliyas Khan & Joga Ram and petitioner being bonafide purchaser having purchased the tractor after obtaining loan from Bhumi Vikas Bank, Branch Phalodi cannot be made to suffer on account of the said aspect. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not indicated any wrong material particulars and therefore, power under Section 55(5) of the Act cannot be exercised.

4. The DTO by his order dated 9.9.2002 based on letter dated 23.8.2002 received from the marketing division of the manufacturer wherein it was indicated that Form No.22 was not issued by the said manufacturer and on coming to the conclusion that Form No.21 was not valid, exercising powers under Section 55(5) of the Act cancelled the registration.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 57 of the Act before the RTA, Jodhpur. The RTA after hearing the petitioner and Joga Ram, who appeared as Caveator, came to the conclusion that the registration was obtained based on wrong documents and as the order was passed after giving opportunity of hearing, no interference was called for and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the dispute before the Registering Authority was raised by Joga Ram only on account of inter se dispute between him and Iliyas Khan, who in his own version was the sub-dealer and the petitioner being bonafide purchaser cannot be made to suffer on account of any wrong doing allegedly done by said Iliyas Khan. The petitioner has obtained loan from the Bank and has purchased the tractor and if the order as passed by the DTO and the RTA are allowed to be sustained, the same would result in total injustice to the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that no case for exercise of power under Section 55 of the Act has been made out, inasmuch as, it cannot be said that the registration was obtained based on incorrect material particulars and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

8. It was further submitted that though the notice dated 6.8.2002 pertained to Form No.22, while passing the order, the DTO has held that Form No.21 also was incorrect. A further plea was raised that so-called report dated 23.8.2002, which has formed the basis for the passing of the order dated 9.9.2002 was never supplied to the petitioner and on that count, the order passed by the DTO as upheld by the RTA cannot be sustained.

9. Reliance was placed on Prakash Chand Mehta v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1986 Himachal Pradesh 38 .

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the order dated 9.9.2002 has been passed by the DTO after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing t