JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 9 September 2025 in Appeal No.12 of 2025, passed by the Appellate Authority and Joint Transport Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 27 March 2025 passed by the Registering Authority, thereby cancelling the Certificate of Registration in respect of the Vehicle bearing Chassis No.JNITANY62A0120339 and Engine No.VK56VD397632A, under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, 1988), came to be dismissed.

3. The background facts necessary for the determination of this Petition can be stated, in brief, as under :

3.1 A Nissan petrol car bearing Chassis No. JNITANY62A0120339 was initially registered with RTO Manipur in the name of Meenarani Devi, under a Certificate of Registration issued on 12 February 2020. On 28 February 2020, the State Transport Department, Senapati, Manipur, issued NOC to register the said car with RTO, Mumbai. Consequently, the said car came to be registered in the name of Meenarani Devi with Registration No.MH-02/FL-8055.

3.2 The Petitioner claimed to have purchased the said vehicle from Meenarani Devi for a consideration of Rs.1,22,50,000/-. Upon a notice of transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle being submitted to the RTO, Mumbai, on 1 December 2020, the said car came to be registered in the name of the Petitioner.

3.3 Subsequently, it transpired that the said car was fraudulently imported in the name of Mr.Jong Yong Ryong, a diplomatic officer, by dishonestly availing the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty under Notification No.03/1957-Cus., dated 8 January 1957. The Director of Revenue Intelligence, thus, seized the said vehicle in the month of August 2021. By an order dated 31 January 2022, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai, allowed the provisional release of the said car on the condition of execution of bond to the tune of Rs.32,35,50,000/- and bank guarantee of Rs.70,85,745/-.

3.4 The Petitioner filed Settlement Application before the Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission, under sub-Section (5) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. By an order dated 8 May 2024, the Commission settled the customs duty at Rs.66,00,420/- and interest of Rs.35,77,789/-. The car was also confiscated. However, the Petitioner was given an option to redeem the same upon payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Commission also granted immunity from the penalty and prosecution

under Section 127H of the Act, 1962, subject to payment of duty, interest and fine.

3.5 The Petitioner paid the customs duty, interest and fine imposed by the Commission. The car was released.

3.6 In the meanwhile, Anti Corruption Bureau registered the offences vide C.R.No.18 of 2023 in connection with the registration of the said car on the basis of the forged bill of entry against the then Sub-Regional Transport Officer and others. The vehicle was again seized by the ACB on 20 June 2024.

3.7 The Petitioner filed an application under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Special Judge. By an order dated 29 June 2024, the car was ordered to be returned to the Petitioner upon executing a bond in the sum of Rs.75,00,000/-.

3.8 On 30 January 2025, the Deputy RTO issued a notice to the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the registration of the said car be not cancelled under Section 55(5) of the Act, 1988. The Petitioner gave reply to the said notice.

3.9 By an order dated 27 March 2025, the Registering Authority and Deputy Regional Transport Officer, cancelled the registration opining, inter alia, that it was indirectly conceded by the Petitioner that the said car was registered on the strength of a bogus bill of e