Back
High Court Of Orissa
D. P. MOHAPATRA, A. K. PATNAIK
SATYA NARAYAN DAS - Appellant
Versus
GOVT.OF INDIA - Respondent
C. J. C. 9387 Of 1993
Decided On : 02/02/1994
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 41(8), 41(11), 192 - CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989 - RULE 52(3) - REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE - RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION - PENALTY FOR NOT MAKING APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - STRICT AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF PENAL PROVISIONS - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 192 FOR DRIVING UNREGISTERED MOTOR VEHICLE - VALIDITY OF RULE 52(3) - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle was stopped by the flying squad of the State Transport Authority for not renewing the certificate of registration. A vehicle checking report was issued, and the petitioner was asked to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 for compounding the offense under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged the validity of the vehicle checking report and the applicability of Section 192, arguing that he was only liable for a maximum fine of Rs. 100 under Section 41(11) for not applying for renewal of the registration certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not liable for action under Section 192 of the Act as stated in the vehicle checking report. The court found that the petitioner had not applied for renewal of the certificate of registration as required under Section 41(8) of the Act and was liable for a penalty not exceeding Rs. 100 under Section 41(11). The court directed the petitioner to file an application for renewal of the certificate of registration within two weeks and the registering authority to pass orders on the application within two weeks.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was liable for action under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for driving an unregistered motor vehicle. 2. Whether Rule 52(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not liable for action under Section 192 of the Act because the certificate of registration of his vehicle had not been cancelled or suspended and no period of validity was entered in the certificate of registration. The court found that the petitioner had not applied for renewal of the certificate of registration as required under Section 41(8) of the Act and was liable for a penalty not exceeding Rs. 100 under Section 41(11). 2. The court did not examine the vires of Rule 52(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as it found that the petitioner's case did not fall within the express language of the rule.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ application by directing the petitioner to file an application for renewal of the certificate of registration within two weeks and the registering authority to pass orders on the application within two weeks. The court also directed that the certificate of registration and the certificate of insurance seized by the authorities may not be released in favor of the petitioner till appropriate orders are passed by the registering authority.
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the vehicle checking report dated 26-3-93 (Annexure 1) and for declaring R. 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') as ultra vires the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' ). The petitioner has also prayed for return of the documents seized by the authorities.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, an engineer serving under KALOD at Angul, owns a fiat car registered in the year 1972 bearing registration No. CRX 6100. The petitioner has been regularly paying tax for the said car to the registering authority, Dhenkanal, opposite party No. 2, and has also paid the tax for the period 1993-94. For all those years, the petitioner was never intimated by any authority that the certificate of registration of the petitioner is valid for a period of 15 years and has to be renewed thereafter. On 26-6-93 when the petitioner was travelling in the said car from Angul to Bhubaneswar to attend a marriage function, his car was stopped by the flying squad of the State Transport Authority and he was served with a vehicle checking report (Annexure 1) for alleged offence under S. 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a sum of Rs. 2,000 / was demanded from the petitioner for compounding the said offence. When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,000 /-, the flying squad seized the certificate of registration and certificate of Insurance of the vehicle and directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Transport (Enforcement), opposite party No. 3, on 28-6-93. The petitioner appeared before the opposite party No. 3 on 28-6-93 and was asked to pay a minimum fine of Rs. 1,000 /- for the purpose of compounding the offence under S. 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner, however, expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,000 / - for compounding the offence and has filed the present writ application. One of the maximum amount that can be demanded by the authorities for the default on the part of the petitioner for not applying for renewal of the certificate for registration of his vehicle is Rs. 100/ -.
( 3 ) MR. G. P. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is at best guilty of not filing an application for renewal of the registration certificates of his vehicle as required under sub-section (8) of section 41 of the Act and is, therefore, liable for a maximum amount of Rs. 100 /- under sub-section (11) of S. 41 of the Act. Mr. Mohanty further submits that the petitioner is not liable under S. 192 of the Act for contravention of S. 39 and in the event it is held on the basis of what has been provided under sub-rule (2) of R. 52 of the Rules that the petitioner is liable for the offence under S. 192 of the Act, then the said sub-rule (3) of R. 52 is ultra vires the provisions contained in S. 41 of the Act.
( 4 ) MR. S. Nayak, the learned standing Counsel (Transport) on the other hand contends that under S. 192 of the Act whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of S. 39, is punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000 / - and S. 39 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit a vehicle to be driven in a public place or any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the Act and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled. According to Mr. Nayak, since the certificate of registration of the petitioner's vehicle was valid only for a period of 15 years from the date of issue of such registration certificate as provided under sub-section (7) of S. 41 of the Act, the period of validity of the said registration certifica
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
