Orissa High Court
Arnapurna Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 27548 of 2025
Arnapurna Behera ........ Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sarat Kumar Behera, Adv.
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite Party (s)
Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel
(for Transport Department)
Mr. Lalitendu Bhuyan, Adv.
(for O.P.4)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
31.10.2025
Order No.
01.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary and plenary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of
mandamus, commanding the Opposite Parties -- and in
particular Opposite Party No.2, the Regional Transport
Officer, Balasore -- to forthwith effect registration and allot a
valid registration number in respect of the Petitioner's
and dereliction of duty on the part of the concerned
authorities and the authorized dealer, resulting in the denial
of the Petitioner's statutory entitlement to registration under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, with
considerable emphasis, submits that the Petitioner had
lawfully purchased a John Deere 5042D Tractor from Opposite
Party No.4 -- Utkal Agro Agency, Balasore -- as far back as
in the year 2021. The purchase was effectuated through a
lawful transaction and in due course of business, the
Petitioner having remitted a sum of ₹45,000/- towards
registration fees and allied charges as demanded by the
dealer. Notwithstanding such payment and compliance with
all procedural requisites, the vehicle has not been registered
till date. The failure, it is contended, stems solely from the
gross negligence, dereliction of statutory obligation, and
administrative indifference exhibited by Opposite Party No.4,
who was duty-bound to ensure the forwarding of all relevant
documents and payments to the registering authority in
accordance with law. It is thus submitted that the Petitioner,
despite being a bona fide purchaser and law-abiding citizen,
continues to be deprived of the legitimate fruits of
ownership, thereby suffering undue financial and operational
hardship.
5. It is further submitted that as a direct consequence of the
continuing non-registration of the said vehicle, the same
came to be seized by the Opposite Party No.3 /Inspector-in-
Charge, Oupada Police Station. The seizure, counsel
contends, is wholly unjustified in law, being premised upon
the absence of registration, whereas the root cause of such
absence lies not in any omission on the part of the Petitioner
but in the gross failure of Opposite Party No.4 to discharge
its legal obligations. Learned counsel submits that the
Petitioner, having duly complied with the requirements of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989, cannot be penalized or prejudiced on account of
the fault of an intermediary who, in the eyes of law, acted as
an agent in the performance of a statutory function ancillary
to registration.
6. Learned counsel has further drawn attention to the fact that
the Petitioner had furnished all requisite documents,
including the sale certificate, proof of address, and other
relevant particulars, along with the prescribed registration
fee, to Opposite Party No.4 for onward transmission to the
competent registering authority. The inaction of the said
Opposite Party in performing the ministerial and statutory
duty of facilitating registration constitutes, it is urged, a
breach of public duty attracting the equitable jurisdiction of
this Court. Ld Counsel for the petitioner further contends
that such conduct also offends the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, inasmuch as a citizen who deals with a licensed
dealer, operating under the regulatory control of the
Transport Department, is entitled to expect that such dealer
shall discharge all obligations mandated under law without
omission or delay.
7. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced at the Bar and upon meticulous perusal of the
materials available on record, this Court is constrained to
observe that the Petitioner's predicament is a direct
manifestation of administrative apathy and the indifference
of a statutory intermediary. The factual matrix, as it stands,
leaves no manner of doubt that the Petitioner has acted in
good faith and has neither been remiss nor negligent in
discharging the obligations cast upon her by statute. The
fault, both in fact and in law, lies squarely with Opposite
Party No.4, whose omission to transmit the necessary
documents and remittance to the registering authority has
occasioned the entire controversy.
8. This Court cannot remain a passive onlooker to such a
situation wherein a citizen, despite full compliance with
statutory formalities, is rendered remediless by the inaction
of an intermediary operating under the aegis of the State's
regulatory regime. The principle of administrative
accountability, which underlies Article 14 of the Constitution,
mandates that public or quasi-public entities discharging
statutory functions be answerable for acts of omission that
result in deprivation of legal rights. In the present case,
Opposite Party No.4's conduct not only undermines the
statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act but also infringes
the Petitioner's legitimate expectation of prompt and lawful
registration of her vehicle.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice
demand that the Petitioner, who has suffered unwarranted
hardship due to no fault of her own, be duly compensated.
Accordingly, this Court holds Opposite Party No.4 /Utkal
Agro Agency, Balasore -- responsible for the lapses in
question and deems it appropriate to impose a compensatory
cost of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) upon the said
Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.4 shall pay the
aforesaid amount to the Petitioner along with all the
necessary vehicle related document which have been not
shared by the Opposite Party No.4 with the Transport
Authority, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
order, failing which the said Opposite Party shall render
itself liable to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971.
10.Simultaneously, the Petitioner is directed to approach the
competent registering authority along with all requisite
documents, including a certified copy of this judgment. Upon
such presentation, the authority concerned shall ensure that
the vehicle in question is duly registered within a period of
fifteen (15) days from the date of such submission, in
accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 and the Rules framed thereunder.
11.Since physical inspection and verification of the vehicle
constitute a statutory precondition for registration, the
Inspector-in-Charge, Oupada Police Station is hereby
directed to forthwith release the vehicle in question to the
Petitioner. It is further directed that the said authority shall
not cause any impediment, obstruction, or harassment
during the transit of the vehicle from the Police Station or the
Petitioner's residence to the Office of the Transport Authority
for the limited and specific purpose of registration.
12.It is, however, clarified that until the registration process is
duly completed in conformity with the statutory provisions,
the vehicle shall not be used, operated, or deployed for any
commercial or personal purpose.
13.The Opposite Party No.4 is further directed to furnish
forthwith to the Petitioner all documents required under the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, including Form 21 (Sale
Certificate) and Form 22 (Roadworthiness Certificate),
together with any ancillary papers necessary for the
expeditious registration of the vehicle.
14.In view of the foregoing discussion and directions, this writ
petition stands disposed of. There shall be no further order as
to costs beyond what has already been directed hereinabove.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
