Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Mahendra Gupta v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 18266 of 2024 (G); Decided on 30.8.2024*
M.P.S. Raghuvanshi with R.D. Sharma, Amir Khan and Upendra Shriwas for petitioner;
Vishal Tripathi, Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2/State;
Ankur Modi and Soumya Pawaiya for respondent No. 3.
The court affirmed that any registering authority can suspend vehicle registration under the Motor Vehicles Act if there are contraventions, regardless of geographical registration.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 40, 53, and 57 - Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the seizure and suspension of vehicle registration by authorities outside its jurisdiction - The petitioner argued lack of authority for the suspension and that registration authority should be from the state where vehicle is registered. (Paras 2-5, 11-14)
(B) Jurisdiction - The authority to suspend registration of vehicles is confirmed for any registering authority, thus allowing the respondent authority the power to issue suspension orders. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tourist bus operator, sought to challenge the seizure of his vehicle, which was validly registered in Madhya Pradesh, alleging that the seizure and registration suspension by Rajasthan authorities was unlawful.
Findings of Court:
The court found the authority from Rajasthan had jurisdiction under Section 53 of the MV Act to suspend the vehicle registration.
Issues: Whether the authority correctly suspended the vehicle registration and the jurisdiction of the DTO/ARTO in Rajasthan over a vehicle registered in Madhya Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the legislative intent of the MV Act permits any registering authority to act under Section 53 if contraventions occur, regardless of original registration authority's location.
Result: Petition disposed of, directing the petitioner to pursue an appeal.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to allow this petition and order impugned dated 18.06.2024 (Annex.P-1) alongwith impugned seizer: (Annex.P-5) may kindly be set-aside by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, in the interest of justice.
Any other deems fit and proper in the facts and_ circumstances of the case may kindly be passed by awarding the cost of petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice”
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a tourist bus operator and doing the business of Transportation of Tourists in India by his own tourist buses. Petitioner owned tourist vehicle bearing No. UP -95 T 5127 which was initially registered with Regional Transport Officer (RTO) Mahoba (U.P.) and at present it is duly registered with RTO, Gwalior after NOC being issued from RTO, Mahoba. As submitted, petitioner's vehicle was having valid documents at the relevant time of checking/seizure of vehicle on 1.5.2024 under the jurisdiction of District Transport Officer and Registration Officer Jaipur -II and registration of vehicle was kept under suspension by DTO Jaipur exercising the power under section 53(1)(a) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”). Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
3. According to senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, impugned seizure of vehicle and suspension of registration is contrary to the provisions of sections 130 and 207 of the MV Act. It is further submitted that Chapter -IV of the MV Act as well as Chapter -IV of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”) provides provision for registration of vehicle, suspension of registration certificate, cancellation of registration certificate as well as issuance of certificate of fitness. By virtue of provisions of Section 65(2)(b) and (d) of the MV Act, State Government is empowered to prescribe any registering authority or other prescribed authority in the State for the purpose of carrying out the effect of the provisions of Chapter -IV of the MV Act including registration of motor vehicle and its suspension. Therefore, it covers the provision as contained in Sections 40, 53, 55 and 56 respectively of the MV Act. Therefore, RTO/DTO/ARTO of Madhya Pradesh under rule 41 of the rules of 1994 are registering authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of carrying out effect of the provisions. Since vehicle was registered in Madhya Pradesh, therefore, DTO/RTO Jaipur (Rajasthan) had no authority to interfere in the matter by way of suspension of registration. DTO Jaipur -II (Rajasthan) is empowered to function as registration authority within the district Jaipur and he cannot operate in respect of vehicles which are being registered in Madhya Pradesh.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred different provisions under the MV Act and the rules of 1994 to bring home the fact that certificate of registration can only be suspended by any competent authority/prescribed authority at Madhya Pradesh.
5. It is further submitted that part of cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in term of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India in Gwalior within territorial jurisdiction of this Court because order of suspension of registration under Section 53 of the MV Act was served on the petitioner at his residential address in Gwalior. Petitioner submitted his reply from Gwalior and realised the impact of suspension of registration at Gwalior. He relied upon the judgment of apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2000 SC 2966 and submits that it is bundle of facts as part of cause of action arises at Gwalior.
6. It is further submitted that section 52 of the MV Act has been wrongly interpreted by the resp
