A Division Bench of Justices Ali Mohammad Magrey and Vinod Chatterji Koul quashed a circular issued by the Regional Transport Officer mandating re-registration of vehicles purchased from outside Jammu and Kashmir.
If a vehicle is registered in any State in India, it shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India on the condition that it is not kept in any other State for a period exceeding 12 months.
Factual Background
The Court was dealing with a plea challenging a circular dated March 27, 2021, issued by the Regional Transport Office, Kashmir in this regard. The circular read that it will be mandatory for owners who have purchased their vehicles bearing registration mark from outside the UT to apply for a new registration mark as per the provisions of Section 47/50 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 within a period of 15 days.
Case of the Petitioners
The above-stated circular was challenged by two vehicle owners, Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Irshad Hussain Munshi who thought residents of J & K had purchased vehicles bearing Delhi registration.
Petitioners while in Srinagar were harassed by the Police Department, merely on the ground that they had the number plate of Delhi and after explaining the reason for the same they were
mentioned in the circular.
This made them approach the High Court, contending that the perusal of Section 47 would reveal that the power/jurisdiction for assigning a new registration number on a vehicle lies with the Central Government. In absence of the provision stating delegation of powers, the RTO has no authority to issue a circular challenge.
The petitioner stressed upon Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that for the execution of Section 47 and for assigning a new Registration Mark, the vehicle removed from one State to other must have been positioned in a State of more than 12 months.
“In the instant case, the circular was neither in accordance with the scheme envisaged in Section 47 of the Act nor was clear with respect to the implementation of the said Section over a particular class of vehicles”, it was submitted.
The concern of double taxation was also pointed out, stating that the owner would have already paid tax while registering the vehicle for the first time.
Case of the Respondent
The Regional Transport Officer, Kashmir defended the decision before the High Court stating that it was taken in a meeting headed by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department for ensuring screening of vehicles that bear the non-local registration.
The Advocate General appearing for respondents also contended that circular has the objective of ensuring and assigning new registration mark to the vehicles, which are bearing registration mark of the other states but are eventually running in the Union Territory of J & K, as mandated by Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Observation of the Court
The two-judge bench quashed the circular issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Kashmir, wherein it was stated that the vehicle owners, who have purchased their vehicles from outside Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory bearing outside registration mark, were asked to apply for new registration mark as per the provision of Section 47 and 50 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, read with Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 within 15 days failing which it warned of action.
The Court after analyzing the provisions of the Act held that once the vehicle is registered in any one State of India, it shall not be required to be registered in any other State in India. Only and only when a vehicle registered in one State has been kept in any other State for more than twelve months, the owner of the vehicle shall apply for a new registration to the registration authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark, provided the vehicle owner declares the same, there is no provision in the law dealing with such non-declaration.
In the present case, the vehicle was not in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for more than 12 months, thus the circular issued by the RTO was irrelevant and with no jurisdiction.
Case Details
Before: Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat v. Govt of JK
Coram: Ali Mohammad Magrey, Vinod Chateerji Koul
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
