Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Abdul Majid Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 7 May, 2025
Serial No. 03
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 960/2025
CM(2520/2025)
Abdul Majid Bhat. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Syed Ainain Qadri, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Others. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, Judge.
ORDER
07.05.2025
01. An application bearing CM No. 2766/2025 has been
preferred by the applicant/petitioner for placing on record the
photocopy of S.O 183 of 2020 dated 2nd June, 2020 in
compliance to order dated 30th April, 2025 passed by this
Court in WP(C) No. 960/2025.
02. For the reasons stated in the application coupled
with what has been argued by the learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner, the same is allowed and the photocopy
of SO accompanying the application is taken on record, with
all just exceptions.
03. CM No. 2766/2025 is accordingly disposed of.
WP(C) No. 960/2025; CM No. 2520/2025:
04. The issue which has been projected in the instant
petition, has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of
this Court in case titled as Zahoor Ahmad Bhat vs Government
of J&K and Ors bearing WP(C) No. 669/2021 decided on 29 th
April, 2021, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, as has already been noticed by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in an identical matter bearing WP(C) No.
3117/2023 tilted "Ishfaq Ahmad Tantray vs Union Territory of
J&K and Others" decided on 9th August, 2024. Paragraph 29
of the judgment passed by the Division Bench shall be
advantageous to be referred to in this case, which reads as
under:
"29. We have already noticed the scheme of law, which
provides for assignment of new registration mark but
deem it proper to reiterate that if the vehicle once
registered in any State in India, it shall not be required
to be registered elsewhere in India, but when the Motor
Vehicle registered in one State, has been kept in
another State for a period of exceeding 12 months, the
owner shall apply to the Registering Authority within
whose jurisdiction the vehicle is for the assignment of
new registration mark, this is as provided under
Sections 46 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore,
a life time tax that is levied at the point of registration
of a vehicle in terms of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, cannot be levied on a vehicle registered, merely on
a presumption that a vehicle registered outside Union
Territory of JK, has remained in the Union Territory of
J&K for a period exceeding 12 months."
Paragraph No. 9 of the judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 3117/2023 tilted
Ishfaq Ahmad Tantray vs Union Territory of J&K and Others
decided on 9th August, 2024, would also be advantageous to
be referred to in this case, which reads as under:
"9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and by issuance
of a writ of mandamus the respondents in general and
respondent 3 in particular are commanded to assign
registration mark of the UT of J&K to the aforesaid
vehicle of the petitioner in terms of section 47 of the
Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 without demanding 9%
token tax. Let the needful be done by the respondents
within four weeks' time from the date of passing of this
order. The respondents, however shall be at liberty to
take up the matter with regard to the aforesaid vehicle
of the petitioner with the registering authority of the
State of Haryana for refund of token tax paid on the
vehicle in question for its payment towards the UT of
J&K as has been done in the above Zahoor Ahmad
Bhat's case."
05. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the instant petition be also disposed of on the same lines as
has been done by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying
upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court,
which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
06. With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at this
stage and the same is accordingly disposed of in the light of
the judgment of the Division Bench mentioned supra as also
in the light of the Order/judgment passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court and a direction is accordingly issued to
the respondent No. 3 to accept the application of the petitioner
for re-registration of his vehicle for assignment of a new
registration mark, without insisting on payment of re-
registration fee, which if be done, would be in conformity with
the direction passed by the Division Bench of this Court. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned valuation report dated 3rd
April, 2025, prepared by the Accounts Officer, Regional
Transport Officer, Kashmir, insofar as it directs/demands
payment of fee @9%, which is in derogation of the mandate
and spirit of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, shall
stand quashed.
07. Writ petition disposed of in the manner as indicated
above.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
SRINAGAR:
07.05.2025
"HAMID"
