JUDGMENT

The controversy in the case revolves around the registration of the vehicle bearing No.PY-01 BS-0777 from RTO, Pondicherry (Pudussery) owned by the petitioner. The RTO, Irinjalakkuda, Thrissur initiated the proceedings of re- registration of the vehicle on account of circumventing the payment of the tax having more value than the one paid at Pudussery leading to filing of a writ petition bearing No.20086 of 2018. The said writ petition was decided in favour of the petitioner on 26.7.2019. Against the aforementioned judgment, the Transport Commissioner along with the other appellants, who are arrayed as respondents in the writ petition, preferred Writ Appeal bearing No.668/2020. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2020 set aside the judgment of the Single Bench by holding that the order of the cancellation can be made by the registering authority, if any of the situations prescribed under sub Section 5 of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act is brought to the Registering authority and on their satisfaction, the order of cancellation, can be passed after holding an enquiry.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that vide communication dated 23.3.2022, Joint Regional Transport Officer, Irinjalakkuda intimated the Regional Transport Officer, Puducherry for holding an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the proof of address; the building where the registered owner was allegedly staying at the time of registration of the vehicle. However, without waiting for the enquiry report or information vide impugned order dated 6.4.2022, Ext.15, ordered for re-registration. Recovery proceedings have been initiated regarding shortfall of the registration tax since the petitioner apparently is resident of Kerala, as vehicle ought to have been registered in Kerala, instead of Puducherry.

3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the order impugned is in compliance with the directions of this Court contained in the judgment dated Ext.P9.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Vide judgment Ext.P9, the Division Bench of this Court while setting aside the findings of the Single Bench was of the opinion that the enquiry was required to be conducted by the registering authority where the vehicle is registered and on receipt of the same, the competent authority in Kerala would be at liberty to recommend for cancellation. In compliance of the judgment, enquiry was sought from the competent authority ie., RTO officer vide communication dated 23.3.2022, Ext.P14. The contents of the communication reads as under:

As per the judgment in WA 668 of 2020 dated 19-

11-2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has directed to this authority to an enquiry and take appropriate action regarding the genuineness of the address produced for registration and if the address proof is a bogus, steps is to be initiated TO CANCEL THE Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Hence it is requested to enquire the genuineness of the address proof and whether the registered owner was stayed in that building during the time of registration of the vehicle. Material evidence in this regard (statement from House Owner or copy of rental agreement or vouchers of rent paid etc.) if available is also expedited. An early reply solicited. Failing to which we will be compelled to take appropriate action to cancel the certificate of registration of the above vehicle.

Without waiting for the report/enquiry or any information regarding the authenticity of the particulars submitted by the petitioner at the time of registration of the vehicle with RTO, Puducherry, vide impugned order of the Joint RTCO, Irinjalakkuda dated 6.4.2022, Ext.P15 on the basis of the presumption that the registration of the vehicle at Puducherry was based upon the forged documents directed the petitioner for re-registration of the vehicle at Kerala after paying the difference of the vehicle tax as per the tax schedu