Kerala High Court
The Regional Transport Officer vs Joseph Mathew on 14 March, 2025
WA NO. 2502 0F 2019 2025 : KER: 22027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RERAlizI AT EEulAKUIAM
ERESENI
THE HONouRABI,E DR. ]usTlcE A. K. 4AIAszLNKARZDa NAiDIAR
&
THE HONouRABIE MR. dusTlcE EAsimRAN s.
FRIDAr, TEtE i4TH DAY oF bqhRCH 2o25 / 23ro pmLGt7RA, 1946
em ro. 25o2 oF 2olg
(THE OUDCRENT DZLTED 16.07.2019 IN WP(C) NO.23868 0F 2018)
APPELLENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 6 2 IN THE WP(C) :
THE REGIor&AI. TENspORT OFFlcER,
VAYANADU AT RAIIPATTA-673121.
THE TRENspORT com4IssloRER,
TENs TowER, VAZHUTEIAKKAI> , THIRuvmtANTHApt7"-695oo6.
B¥ GovEBIomaT PLEADER slot. RESMITHA RZDncHANDRAN
RESPONDRTS/RETITIONER a JDDL. 3E0 RESPONDENT IN TIRE WP (C) : :
1 4osEPH bmTHEw,
s/o. rosEPH, No. 91, vlELI¥ANUR icalN ROAD,
ARun4pAIHApuRZD4, puDucHERRT, INDIA, Now REslDING AT
KOcHUKt]NNEL plANTArloN, KOzHlpALAM, GUDAI.uR, NILGIRIs
DISTRICI, TAMII. NADU.
THE REGIONAL TENSPORT OFFICER (REGISRERING
AVTHOTRITY) ,
PONDICHEREY-605001.
SRI . K . V . COPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING CORE UP FOR AE)MISSION 0N 14.03.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAIG DAY DELIVERED THE FOIILOWING:
WA NO. 2502 0F 2019 2025 : KER: 22027
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.KTavasankaran Namblar. I.
It is submitted by the leaned Government Pleader that the issue
involved in this appeal has alr`eady been decided in favour of the appellant State
by the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.11.2020 in W.A.No.972 of 2020 and
cormected cases.
Taking note of the said judgment of the Division Bench, a copy of
which shall be annexed to this judgment, this appeal is allowed by setting aside
the judgment of the leaned Single Judge to the limited extent impugned therein
and by following the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
referred above.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.]AYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWAFLAN S.
JUDGE
inns
2020:RER..42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
C.R.,,
|uDGMENT
[WA Mos.2242, 2406, 2411, 2422, 2428, 2429, 2434,
2436, 2448, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2459, 2460, 2469, 2472,
2474, 2479, 2492, 2503, 2514, 2554, 2555raoi9 14, 35, 71,
452, 590, 668, 695, 702, 748, 768, 787, 788, 792, 819, 826,
882, 887, 9Oi, 927 a 972ra02O]
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2020
Shaffiaue. I.
These appeals have been filed by the officers of the State
challenging judgment of the leamed Single Judge disposing of the
writ petitions filed by party respondents by issuing the following
directions:-
"37. As a result of my above discussion I summarise my
judgment on the issues noted above as follows:
(a) Section 3(6) of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 is
within the competence of State legislature and Section
3(6) is not in any manner repugnant to Chapter IV of
Motor Vehicles' Act, 1988 or ultra vires Act 1976. Section
3(6) therefore is valid and legal.
(b) The registration of a nan-transport vehicle and
payment of registration fee under Act 1988 or payment of
motor vehicle tax under a State legislature continues to
be valid so long as the vehicle is kept and used in the
State in which it is registered. These vehicles if enter
State of Kerala and stay beyond the period stipulated by
the State enactment, the vehicle is required to pay
vehicle tax as per Section 3(6) read with Annexure Ill of
Schedule of Act 1976.
2020..RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 50 : -
(c) The impugned orders calling upon the petitioners to
register the subject vehicles I.n State of Kerala and pay
life tax are set aside as illegal, arbitrary and violative of
principles of natural justice, the matters are restored to
the file of respective Regional Transport Officer/
respondents for consideration and disposal by keeping in
view the principles stated supra.
(d) The writ petitions filed challenging show cause
notices are given four weeks. time from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment to file objections against
proposed tax levy and are entitled to show that, firstly,
the vehicle is not kept for use in State of Kerala beyond
thirty days and, alternatively, vehicle is not at all used or
kept for use in State of Kerala. The objection raised
against proposed action is examined in detail and orders
as are warranted by the circumstances of the case are
passed. Respondents keeping in view the scope,
character and purpose of incidence of vehicle tax,
consider the objections and pass detailed orders, in all
the matters now restored to fille as well as where time is
granted for filing objections to show cause notice."
After a common judgment was delivered in WP(C) No.
33231/2018 and connected cases, similar matters were disposed
of on the basis of the said judgment.
2. A batch ofappealscame upforhearing and in matters
where service has been complete, we heard the learned counsel
appearing on either side. We have also requested the learned
counsel appearing in other cases in which the appeals were being
2020:HER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
filed, and in cases where service of notice are not complete, to
address their arguments as well.
3. The factual aspects involved in these matters are
short. The writ petitioners are persons who had purchased their
vehicles from the Union territory of Puducherry. Alleging that
those vehicles are plying in the State of Kerala, steps were taken
by the respective Regional Transport Authorities in the State to
cancel their registration. Notices in that regard had been issued
by the Regional Transport Authorities to the writ petitioners and
to conduct an enquiry in that regard which came to be challenged
in separate writ petitions. According to the Regional Transport
Authorities, the petitioners had produced false and fabricated
documents to register the vehicles at Puducherry and the
vehicles were not normally kept at Puducherry whereas the
vehicles are normally kept in the State of Kerala. It is the
contention of the State that the intention of the petitioners is only
to evade payment of motor vehicles tax at the time of
registration as provided under Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976
(hereinafter referred as 'the Taxation Act'). In the process,
petitioners also challenged Section 3(6) of the Taxation Act.
4. The learned singlejudge while rejecting the challenge
2020:HER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 52 : -
to Section 3(6) of the Taxation Act, held that the impugned orders
calling upon the petitioners to register the vehicles in the State of
Kerala and pay life tax are illegal, arbitrary and violative of
principles of natural justice. All the matters were restored to the
files of the respective Regional Transport Officers for fresh
consideration and disposal. It was also held that the writ
petitioners have to file their objections to the show cause notices
within four weeks against the proposed levy of tax and they were
entitled to show that the vehicles are not kept for use in Kerala
beyond 30 days and altematively the vehicle is not at all used or
kept for use in State of Kerala.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader while
impugning the aforesaid judgment submits that the only question
that is required to be considered in the matter is regarding the
finding of the learned Single judge with reference to S.55 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the 'MV Act').
The learned Single Judge held at paragraph 30.7 that the
Transport Department of State of Kerala and its officers do not
have jurisdiction under S,55(5) of the MV Act, to cancel the
registration effected and completed in the Union Territory of
Puducherry. He argued that the scheme of the statute permitted
2020:RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 53 : -
any registering authority, anywhere in India, to conduct an
enquiry, in a place where the vehicle is normally kept, to
ascertain whether the registration was obtained from any other
registering authority, by producing either false documents or by
misrepresentation of facts, and if the said authority is so satisfied,
it has the power to cancel the registration. But the certificate of
registration can be cancelled only by the original registering
authority on intimation from the concerned registering authority
who cancels the registration.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appeariFig on
behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners would submit that the
provisions of Section 55 (5) of the MV Act cannot be invoked by
``any registering authority'', which is rather clear from the use of
the word ''a registering authority" and ''the registering authority"
used in sub-section (5) of Section 55. It is argued that the
registering authority in the State of Kerala cannot consider the
validity of documents produced by the petitioners before the
registering authority of another State or Union Territory.
7. Apparently, in the judgments which are impugned
herein, the learned Single Judge had proceeded to consider the
scope of S.55(5) and had restricted the right of the Regional
2020:HER..42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 54 : -
Transport Authorities in the State of Kerala to take any action for
cancellation of registration in respect of vehicles which are
already registered in the State of Puducherry.
8. Insofar as the State's challenge is only in respect of
the jurisdictjonal authority of the registering authorities of the
State to invoke power under Section 55(5) with reference to
vehicles registered in another State/Union Territory, we do not
think that we should go into the factual background of each and
every case as the scope of appeal is very limited.
9, S.40 of the MVAct reads as under:-
"40. Flegistration, where to be made.-Subject to the
provisions of section 42, section 43 and section 60, every
owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be
registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he
has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is
normally kept`'.
A bare reading of S.40 indicates that every owner of a motor
vehicle has to register the vehicle before a registering authority
in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business
where the vehicle is normally kept. Therefore, the place of
registration apparently is with reference to the place where the
vehicle is normally kept. It may be either his place of residence or
place of business.
2020:RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 55 : -
10. S.46ofthe MVActreadsasunder:-
"46. Effectiveness ln India of registration.-Subject to the
provisions of Section 47, a motor vehicle registered in
accordance with this Chapter in any State shall not require to
be registered elsewhere in India and a certificate of
reg.Istration issued or in force under this Act in respect of such
vehicle shall be effective throughout India."
Section 46 of course is subject to S.47. S.47 relates to a situation
where a motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in
another State, for a period exceeding twelve months in which
event the owner of the vehicle is obliged to apply to the
registering authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is,
for the assignment of a new registration mark and he shall
present the certificate of registration to that registering authority.
For that purpose, either the owner will have to get a no objection
certificate as contemplated u/s 48 from the Registering Authority
who had issued a certificate of registration or should take steps
as contemplated under the said provision. If there is failure to do
so, S.47(5) indicates that action could be taken against the
owner in terms of S.177.
11. S.49(1) of the MVActreadsas under:-
"49. Change Of residence or place Of businessE (1) If
the owner of a motor vehicle ceases to reside or have his
place of business at the address recorded in the certificate
2020:RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
of registration of the vehicle, he shall, within thirty days of
any such change of address, intimate in such form
accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by
the Central Government, his new address, to the registering
authority by which the certificate of registration was issued,
or, if the new address is within the jurisdiction of another
registering authority, to that other registering authority, and
shall at the same time forward the certificate of registration
to the registering authority or, as the case may be, to the
other registering authority in order that the new address
may be entered therein."
If there is failure to comply with S.49(1), it entails action u/s 177
of the Act.
12. S.55 of the Act as it then was relates to cancellation of
registration under various circumstances, which reads as under:-
"55. Cancellation of registration.-(1) If a motor vehicle
has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently
incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as
soon as may be, report the fact to the registerl.ng authority
within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of
business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may
be, and shall forward to the authority the certificate of
registration of the vehicle.
(2) The registering authority shall, if it is the original
registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate
of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the
certificate of registration to the original registering authority
and that authority shall cancel the registration.
(3) Any registering authority may order the examination of a
motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by such authority as the
2020:RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 57 : -
State Government may by order appoint and, if upon such
examination and after giving the owner an opportunity to
make any representation he may wish to make (by sending to
the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at
his address entered in the certificate of registration), it is
satisfied that the vehicle is in such a condition that it is
incapable of being used or its use in a public place would
constitute a danger to the public and that it is beyond
reasonable repair, may cancel the registration.
(4) If a registering authority is satisfied that a motor vehicle
has been permanently removed out of India, the registering
authority shall cancel the registration.
(5) If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of
a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents
which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in
any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis
number embossed thereon are different from such number
entered in the certificate of registration, the registering
authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make
such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to
the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at
his address entered in the certifl.cate of registration), and for
reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration.
(6) A registering authority cancelling the registration of a
motor vehicle under sectl.on 54 or under this section shall
communicate such fact in writing to the owner of the vehicle,
and the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that
authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle.
(7) A registering authority making an order of cancellat'Ion
under section 54 or under this section shall, if it is the original
registering authority, cancel the certificate of registration and
the entry relating to the vehicle in its records, and, if it is not
2020:HER..42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 58 : -
the original registering authority, forward the certificate of
registration to that authority, and that authority shall cancel
the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the
motor vehicle in its records.
(8)The expression "original registering authority" in this
section and in sections 41, 49, 50, 52, 53 and 54 means the
registering authority in whose records the registration of the
vehicle is recorded.
(9) In this section "certificate of registration" includes a
certificate of registration renewed under the provisions of this
Act. '`
The statute uses the words .the registering authority', 'any
registering authority` and 'a registering authority' in different sub
sections of S.55. S.2(37) defines 'registering authority' as
meaning, an authority empowered to register motor vehicles
under Chapter lv, which includes Section 55, as well.
13. On a bare reading of S.55, it is rather clear that the
registering authority can cancel the registration of a vehicle
under various circumstances. As per sub-section (1) of S.55,
when a motor vehicle is destroyed or rendered permanently
incapable of use, the owner has to report the said fact to the
registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has his
residence or place of business, where the vehicle is normally
kept, and shall also forward to the authority the certificate of
registration of the vehicle. Sub section (2) provides that, if the
2020:RER..42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 59 : -
report is received by the original registering authority, he can
cancel the registration and the certificate of registration. If it is
not the original registering authority, he shall forward the report
and the certificate of registration to the original registering
authority in which event that authority shall cancel the
registration. Therefore, even if a vehicle is registered within the
jurisdiction of another registering authority, if the vehicle is
destroyed or rendered permanently incapable of use, the
obligation of the owner is to inform the registering authority
within the jurisdiction of his Place of residence or place of
business where the vehicle is normally kept along with the
certificate of registration. If the said authority is not the original
registering authority, he shall forward a report to the original
registering authority and the said authority will cancel the
registration. Sub-section (3) contemplates a 5uo motu power to
be exercised by any registering authority, if it is found on
examination of a motor vehicle plying within its jurisdiction, and
after notice to the owner of the vehicle, if he is satisfied that the
vehicle is in a condition that it is incapable of being used in a
public place and would be a danger to the public and it is beyond
repair, he can cancel the registration, Sub-section (4) of S.55
2020:REF:..42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 60 : -
contemplates yet another situation when a registering authority
is satisfied that a motor vehicle has been permanently removed
out of India, it shall cancel the registration, Here also, the word
used is 'a registering authority'.
14. Sub-section (5) contemplates a different situation, which
enables the registering authority to cancel the registration of a
motor vehicle. If a registering authority is satisfied that the
registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of
documents which were false in any material particular or by
representation of facts which again was false in any material
particular, the said registering authority shall, after giving the
owner an opportunity to make such representation, cancel the
registration. Action can also be taken if it is found that the engine
number or chassis number differs from what is mentioned in the
certificate of registration. Sub-section (6) of S.55 requires the
registering authority cancelling the registration to communicate
the said fact to the owner of the vehicle, and the owner has to
provide the certificate of registration of the vehicle to the said
authority. Sub-section (7) of S.55 further provides that a
registering authority making an order of cancellation under
Section 54 or "under this section" i.e., S.55, shall, if it is the
2020:RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 61 : -
original registering authority, cancel the certificate of registration
and the entry relating to the vehicle in its records, and, if it is not
the registering authority, forward the certificate of registration to
that authority, and that authority shall cancel the certificate of
registration and the entry relating to the motor vehicle in its
records. Sub-section (8) further indicates that the expression
'`original registering authority" means the registering authority in
whose records the registration of the vehicle is recorded.
15. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the
original registering authority in these cases is the Regional
Transport Authority at Puducherry. The question is, whether any
other registering authority can conduct an enquiry with reference
to any matters specified under sub-section (5).
16. Now coming to sub-section (5), again it starts with the
words 'if a registering authority is satisfied.. We are of the view
that sub-section (7) clarifies the point in dispute, lt starts with
the words 'a registering authority. making an order of
cancellation and further indicates that ``if it is the original
registering authority'', it can cancel the certificate of registration
and the entry relating to the vehicle in its records. If it is not the
original registering authority, it shall forward the certificate of
2020:HER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 62 : -
registration to that authority, and that authority shall cancel the
certificate of registration and the entry relating to the motor
vehicle in its records.
17. Apparently, sub-section (7) provides a procedure where
the registering authority who passes an order of cancellation is
either the original registering authority or it is not the original
registering authority. S.55(1) contemplates a situation, where the
vehicle is either destroyed or incapable of use and the procedure
is mentioned under S.55(2). S.55(3) and (4) contemplates two
different situations and the authority `'any registering authority"
appearing under sub-section (3) and `'a registering authority"
under sub-section (4) is only to "cancel the registration". Sub-
section (7) applies in such instances, which differentiates
between ``an order of cancellation" and ``cancel the certificate of
registration and entry relating to the vehicle in its records''. The
distinction is only this. Any registering authority could make an
order of cancellation. But the certificate of registration and the
entry relating to the vehicle jn its records can be cancelled only
by the original registering authority.
18. It is permissible for a vehicle registered in one State to
be used in any other State, but of course subject to the statutory
2020..RER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 63 : -
restrictions and compliance of local laws, For that reason itself,
we cannot ascribe to the view that proceedings under S.55(5)
could be initiated only by the original registering authority, and
especially in the light of sub-section (7), which clarifies the
jurisdictional fact.
19. It is pointed out by the counsel for petitioners that the
original registering authorities were satisfied about their
credentials at the time of registration and therefore another
registering authority cannot overturn the said finding of fact.
Validity of the materials relied upon at the time of registration are
questions of fact, and it is possible that the original registering
authority had placed reliance upon it and registered the vehicle.
As already stated, a vehicle can be registered at a place where a
person has his/her residence or place of business, where the
vehicle is normally kept. Suppose a person's place of residence
and business was in the State of Kerala and the vehicle is
normally kept in the State, and if it is found that he has no place
of residence or business in the place of original registering
authority, it is a matter which requires enquiry in terms, with
Section 55(5). Such enquiry can be conducted only by the
registering authority, where the vehicle is normally kept, and the
2020:KERk42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
-: 64 : -
said authority will have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration,
Once such an order is passed, cancellation of certificate of
registration and entry relating to the motor vehicle from the
register can be made only by the original registering authority.
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in arriving at
a conclusion that the Transport Authorities of State of Kerala can
only conduct an enquiry and if it is found that the record of the
very registration is vitiated, report can be forwarded to the
original registering authority under S.55(5) and it is for the said
authority to conduct enquiry and cancel the registration. An
apparent mistake that has arisen in the matter is on the
understanding of the words 'making an order of cancellation' and
cancelling the .certificate of registration and the entry relating to
the motor vehicle' in its records. An order of cancellation can be
made by any registering authority if it is satisfied that any of the
situations as described under sub-section (5) of S.55 is brought to
the notice of the registering authority and if he is satisfied on
enquiry that such a condition exists. Once the order of
cancellation is made, it shall be forwarded to the original
registering authority to enable that authority to .cancel the
2020:HER:42833
WA No.2242/2019 & conn.cases
certificate of registration' and the 'entry relating to the motor
vehicle. in its records.
In the result, the appeals are allowed setting aside the
judgment of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent as
discussed earlier.
Sd/-
A . M . SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp True Copy JunGE
PS to Judge
