IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.25367 OF 2024 (MV)

BETWEEN:

M/S MANDOVI MOTORS PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.133, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, CHAMARAJAPET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 018.

REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. SUKESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE GOPAL SHETTY, HAVING THE SHOWROOM AT M/S NEXA MANDOVI MOTORS PVT LTD., NO.33/2, ALLALSANDRA GATE, Digitally YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD, signed by BENGALURU, VANAMALA KARNATAKA - 560 065.

N …PETITIONER Location:

High Court (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE)

of Karnataka AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, I FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BLDG, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT.

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT, ARSIKERE MAIN ROAD, KATE HALLI, HASSAN - 573 201.

3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.H., AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 14/08/2024 BEARING NO. HSN/RTO/13/01/2024/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, ‘a Dealer', is aggrieved by the Notice dated 14.08.2024 [Annexure-A] issued by the second respondent under Sections 182A[1] and 192B[2] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act']. The second respondent has issued this notice asserting that a Maruti Baleno with definite Engine and Chassis numbers was intercepted by the Enforcing Authority, and it is found out that this vehicle was on a public road without a valid Registration and exhibition of Registration mark.

2. The impugned notice further reads that upon enquiring Sri Jaipal, who was driving the vehicle at the time of interception, the Enforcement Authority was informed that he was driving the vehicle from Mangaluru to Bengaluru and without registration mark, but he has produced a copy of the Trade Certificate issued in Form No.17 and a copy of the insurance policy.

3. The second respondent, after reference to the afore, has opined that Section 39 of the MV Act stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle, or no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in a public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with law, and because the petitioner has allowed the vehicle to be so driven, there is violation as contemplated under Sections 182A[1] and 192B[2] of the MV Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs,2,45,546/- as fine. This amount is twice the lifetime tax payable for the vehicle.

4. It is undisputed that simultaneously with issuing the impugned Notice, penal proceedings have begun. The petitioner has called in question the initiation of such proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, 'the Cr.PC'] which is allowed. Sri Nataraja A. Ballal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the aforesaid decision would foreclose any dispute on facts, and it will be beyond dispute that the petitioner had permitted the vehicle to be driven from one of its showrooms at Mangaluru to one of its showroom in Bengaluru, and it would be permissible to use the vehicle in a public place based on a Trade Registration mark [Trade Certificate issued under Rule 17] if it is to proceed from the premises of one dealer to the premises of another.

5. Sri Nataraja A. Ballal also canvasses that the prohibition to drive a vehicle without Registration as is contained in Section 39 of the MV Act is subject to the exception as contemplated under the proviso appended thereto and that Rule 41[d] of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 19