Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 4083
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
R. Teekaraman
Versus
The Secretary/Regional Transport Authority/Regional Transport Officer
W.P.No.21939 of 2008
Decided On : 10-11-2008
For the Petitioner:K. Premkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the surrender and cancellation of permits should be considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the State Motor Vehicle Rules, and that undue restrictions based on misinterpretation of these provisions should not be imposed.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Surrender of Permit - Section 47 - Rule 204 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the assignment of new registration mark on removal to another State, and Rule 204 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, which deals with the surrender and cancellation of permits. The court highlighted the provisions of Section 47 and Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and their application to the re-registration of vehicles from another State. The court also emphasized the relevance of the declaration given by the petitioner at the time of re-registration, as per Rule 54, and its impact on the surrender of the permit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to surrender the permit for a Tipper lorry re-registered in Tamil Nadu after purchasing it in Orissa. The respondent rejected the request citing violation of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the petitioner's undertaking to keep the vehicle in the State for 12 months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's request for surrender and cancellation of permit was valid under Rule 204(1)(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and that the respondent's reliance on Section 47 and the petitioner's undertaking was misplaced.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the relevance of the petitioner's undertaking at the time of re-registration, and the applicability of Rule 204 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to surrender the permit as per Rule 204(1)(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and that the restrictions imposed by the respondent based on Section 47 and the petitioner's undertaking were unfounded.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the respondent was set aside with a direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for surrender and cancellation of permit within a specified period.
The writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent dated 26.08.2008, under which the respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner, seeking permission to surrender the permit on the ground that after transfer of permit in his name, he has to keep the permit within the State for a period of 12 months as per Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also as per the declaration stated to have been given by the petitioner.
2. The short facts leading to passing of the impugned order by the respondent are that the petitioner had purchased the Tipper lorry having been registered in the State of Orissa, bearing registration No.OR-14F-4149 and got it re-registered in Tamil Nadu with registration No.TN-23-AO-4404 in the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of re-registration and at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner has given an undertaking that he shall not surrender the permit issued by the respondent in Goods Carriage Permit No.TGP.No.934/TN23/G.V./2008 for a period of 12 months, though the permit is valid upto 25.06.2013. Since the petitioner has decided to surrender the said permit, the petitioner gave an application on 08.07.2008, in the prescribed form as per Rule 204 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 for surrendering the permit and also for issuance of clearance certificate. As requested by the respondent in the notice dated 21.07.2008 and also on subsequent communication calling upon him for an enquiry on 26.08.2008, the petitioner appeared before the respondent and produced all the required records including the No Objection Certificate issued by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ranipet and also asked permission for surrender of permit and for issuance of clearance certificate. By the impugned order dated 26.08.2008, the respondent has rejected the said request of the petitioner on the ground that the request is in violation of Section 47 of Motor Vehicles Act and also in violation of the undertaking duly notarized and executed on 15.09.2007 that the petitioner would use the vehicle for a period of 12 months in the State from the date of re-registration.
3. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including that it violates the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 204 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989; that as per Rule 204(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, on receipt of the application in Form ACC and in spite of the No objection Certificate from the concerned officer to the effect that no amount of tax or charges is due in respect of the said vehicle, the respondent has failed to issue clearance certificate; that the impugned order is in violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the order has been passed in violation of the procedure and the provision of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been quoted in the impugned order is not applicable.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that that when the petitioner has applied for re-registration of the vehicle, on receipt of various documents for the purpose of re-registration, as per the provisions of the Act, the respondent has obtained confirmation of genuineness of the said certificates from the Registering Authority, Rourkela, Orissa State. It is also stated that along with various papers, the petitioner has also given a declaration on Rs.20/-stamp paper as per Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It is also stated that as per Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act under which the re-registration itself was given, the vehicles should be kept for more than 12 months and to this effect, the petitioner has also given an undertaking. It is also stated that the petitioner is in the habit of buying and selling Goods Carriages of other States and sell after getting re-registration and the rejection
