Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Sunita Yadav, Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT APPEAL No. 2000 of 2024
MAHENDRA GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri
Shailendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri G. K. Agarwal, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard on : 05/11/2024
Delivered on : 07 /01/2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke:
The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
2is preferred against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed in writ petition
No.18266/2024, whereby an order dated 18.06.2024 passed invoking
the provisions of Section 53(1)(A) of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 read
with Rule 4.11 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules 1990, canceling the
registration of vehicle No.UP95-T-5127 was challenged, was held to
be sustainable and the petition was dismissed.
2. Further order of seizure of vehicle Annexure P/5 was also
challenged by the petitioner alleging that the ground on which the
seizure has been made i.e. unauthorized alteration of motor vehicle by
the owner and using of the vehicle without permit though was not
made out, the order of seizure was passed.
3. Short facts leading to the controversy are that the present
appellant, who is the owner of a tourist vehicle bearing No.UP95-T-
5127, when was operating the aforesaid bus from Khatushyamji to
Gwalior that at Seeker Road, Jaipur the vehicle was apprehended by
Transport Inspector Shri Dinesh Jasoriya of Flying Squad No.DFS106
for routine inspection and it was found that the said bus was being run
in contravention of the provisions of the Motor vehicles
Act,1998/Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989/Rajasthan Motor Vehicle
3
Rules,1990 and AIS119. A notice dated 02.05.2024 was given to the
present appellant, wherein while mentioning the grounds of violation,
he was show caused as to why an action under Section 53(1)(a) of
Motor Vehicle Act for suspension of the registration of the vehicle be
not initiated against him. A detailed reply dated 09.05.2024 was
submitted by the appellant. Before taking any action on the said show
cause notice, the petitioner in the meanwhile preferred an application
for supurdginama of the said vehicle, which was allowed by the
Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.13, Jaipur and
Metropolitan No.2 vide order dated 14.05.2024. Thereafter the
impugned order came to be passed, wherein the registration of the
vehicle of the appellant was suspended. The said order was
challenged before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.18266/2024,
which was dismissed, hence the present appeal.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant while referring to
Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 argued that the aforesaid
Section provides that every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the
vehicle to be registered by any “Registering Authority” in the State in
whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business, where
4
the vehicle is normally kept and a registering authority would be an
authority as defined under Section 2(37) of the Act of 1988, which
reads that an authority empowered to register motor vehicle under
Chapter IV; which includes Sections 39 to Section 65. Further it is
argued that as per Section 65 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, powers
have been accorded to the State Governments to make Rules for the
purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV other than
the matters specified in Section 64 (which deals with the powers of
Central Government to make rules). In the light of aforesaid powers
various States have formulated Rules, so far as State of M.P. is
concerned, the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 has been formulated
and with regard to State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1990 have been formulated.
5. It was further argued that as per Rule 41 of M.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1994, wherein the registering authority has been defined; it
shall be the Regional Transport Officer, Additional Regional
Transport Officer, District Transport Officer or such other officer,
who shall be authorized as Registering Authority by the Transport
Commissioner with further stipulation that area of jurisdiction of each
5
registering authority shall be assist by the Transport Commission and
as per definition of Transport Commissioner as defined under Section
2(m), “Transport Commissioner” means the head of the Motor
Vehicles Department established under Section 213 of the Act and
appointed as such by the State Government to perform the duty and
functions of the Transport Commissioner under the Act or the rules
framed thereunder; thus, the powers of registering authority appointed
by the Transport Commissioner shall be confined to the State in
which it has been appointed, thus, if the aforesaid analogy is applied
to the provisions of Section 53 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, any
registering authority of the State as mentioned in Section 53 of the
Motor Vehicles Act would mean the authority as appointed under the
Motor Vehicle Rules and as the vehicle in question is registered at
Gwalior, therefore, the powers which could be exercised under
Section 53 for suspension of registration would only be that by any
authority of the State and not outside the State, it was thus argued that
the interpretation made by the learned writ Court that any registering
authority mean any authority within the country is wholly
misconceived.
6
6. Learned Senior counsel while referring to provisions of Section
54 and 55 of the Act 1988 argued that where the suspension of
registration of the vehicle under Section 53 is continued without
interruption for the period of not less then six months, the registering
authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was, when the
registration was suspended, may if it is the original registering
authority cancel the registration and if it is not, the original registering
authority shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority
which may cancel the registration and thereafter as per Section 55, the
registration can be canceled and the registering authority making an
order of cancellation under Section 54 and under Section 55 if it is the
original registering authority cancel the certificate of registration and
if it is not the original authority forward the certificate of registration
to that authority and that authority shall cancel the certificate of
registration. Thus, it is argued that when the legislature itself had
given powers of cancellation of registration to the authority, who had
registered the vehicle then the same analogy could be applicable so
far as registration is concerned and the provision of Section 53 of
1988 cannot be read in isolation and if the analogy as laid down by
7
the learned writ Court is allowed to stand then any registering
authority shall have also jurisdiction to cancel the registration, which
is not permissible under the law, thus, it was argued that on the basis
of wrong interpretation of the legal position the petition was
dismissed.
7. Learned Senior counsel has further referred to Rule 4.1 of
Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules 1990, which defines the registering
authority, which shall be District Transport Officer so appointed for
the district or the Transport Inspector especially authorized by the
Transport Commissioner to perform the duties of the Registering
Authority and it was argued that the Transport Commissioner of State
of Rajasthan shall appoint the registering authority, who shall be
authorized for effecting the registration of the vehicles in the State,
thus, when separate rules have been framed with regard to different
States recognizing the Transport Authorities appointed for the State
then any registering authority as mentioned under Section 63 shall
amount to the authorities specified as per the respective rules of the
State, thus, it was again reiterated that the order impugned before the
writ Court was per se illegal but misinterpreting the legal position the
8
learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by the impugned
order, which deserves to be quashed. It was, thus, submitted that the
present appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
8. On the contrary, Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 had vehemently opposed the prayer and while
referring to Section 53 of Motor Vehicle Act, argued that if the
analogy of the petitioner is accepted then no authority outside the
State shall have any powers to take any action in case of any violation
of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed therein of that
particular State and every time the authority will have to forward the
matter to the actual registering authority of that State, which would
make the very provisions redundant and would encourage misuse of
the provisions.
9. It was further argued that any registering authority as mentioned
in Section 53 of the Act can not be put at par with the actual
registering authority as mentioned in Section 54 and 55 of the Act, as
if that would have been the case then legislature would have
definitely mentioned in the said Section that even suspension of
registration can be done by the actual registering authority only as it
9
has been mentioned in Section 54 and 55, therefore, such a narrow
interpretation cannot be given to the wordings “Any Registering
Authority” and construing it to be only the Authority of State, it was,
thus, prayed that no illegality has been committed by the learned
Single Judge in passing the impugned order, the appeal, therefore,
deserves to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
11. For reference the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 and Rajasthan Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1990 are being quoted herein below, which would be required
for consideration of the controversy.
12. Section 2(37), 40, 53, 54 and 55 of the Act of 1988 is quoted
herein below:-
“Section 2(37) “registering authority” means an authority empowered to
register motor vehicles under Chapter IV.”
“40. Registration, 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.”
“53. Suspension of registration.–
(1) If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to
believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction–
(a) is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a
danger to the public, or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this
Act or of the rules made thereunder, or
(b) has been, or is being, used for hire or reward without a valid permit for
being used as such, the authority may, after giving the owner an
10opportunity of making any representation he may wish to make (by sending
to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his
address entered in the certificate of registration), for reasons to be recorded
in writing, suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle–
(i) in any case falling under clause (a), until the defects are
rectified to its satisfaction; and
(ii) in any case falling under clause (b), for a period not
exceeding four months.
(2) An authority other than a registering authority shall, when making a
suspension order under sub-section (1), intimate in writing the fact of such
suspension and the reasons therefor to the registering authority within
whose jurisdiction the vehicle is at the time of the suspension.
(3) Where the registeration of a motor vehicle has been suspended under
sub-section (1), for a continuous period of not less than one month, the
registering authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was when the
registration was suspended, shall, if it is not the original registering
authority, inform that authority of the suspension.
(4) The owner of a motor vehicle shall, on the demand of a registering
authority or other prescribed authority which has suspended the certificate
of registration of the vehicle under this section, surrender the certificate of
registration.
(5) A certificate of registration surrendered under sub-section (4) shall be
returned to the owner when the order suspending registration has been
rescinded and not before.”
“54. Cancellation of registration suspended under section 53.–
Where the suspension of registration of a vehicle under section 53 has
continued without interruption for a period of not less than six months, the
registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was when the
registration was suspended, may, if it is the original registering authority,
cancel the registration, and if it is not the original registering authority,
shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority which may
cancel the registration.”
“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 registering 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 that 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 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 acknowledgement 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
11registration.
(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 acknowledgement due at his address entered in the
certificate 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 section 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 cancellation 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 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, 51, 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.”
13. Rule 2(m) and Rule 41 of M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 are
also quoted herein below:-
2(m)”Transport Commissioner” means the head of the Motor Vehicles
Department established under Section 213 of the Act and appointed as such
by the State Government to perform the duty and function of the Transport
Commissioner under the Act or the rules framed thereunder.
41. Registering Authority.
(1)The Registering Authority shall be the Regional Transport Officer,
Additional Regional Transport
Officer or such other officer as may be authorised by the State Government
by notification in the
Official Gazette.(2)The Registering Authority for issuing letter of authority
to the authorised testing
stations, shall be the Regional Transport Officer or such other officer not
below the rank of Regional
Transport Officer as may be authorised by the State Government by
notification in the Official
Gazette.(3)The area of jurisdiction of each Registering Authority shall be
the region or such other
areas as the State Government may notify in the Official Gazette.
12
14. Rule 1.2(r) and Rule 4.1 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules,
1990 are also quoted herein below:
Rule 1.2(r)”Transport Commissioner” means an officer appointed by the
State Government to perform the duties and functions of the Transport
Commissioner under these rules and includes an Additional Transport
Commissioner.
Rule 4.1. Registering Authority.-
(1) The Registering Authority shall be the District Transport Officer so
appointed for the District or the Transport Inspector specially authorised
by the Transport Commissioner to perform the duties of the Registering
Authority.
(2) For the purpose of registration of non-transport vehicles on first sale
under sub-section (3), (5) and (6) of sections 41 of the Act from a dealer
holding valid trade certificate, the commissioner may empower as
Registering Authority subject to the terms and conditions and qualifications
as may be specified from time to time, any dealer as aforesaid or any
person who has sufficient administrative experience and is in the regular
employment of such dealer.
(3) Registering Authority for the purpose of rule 62 to 72 of Central motor
vehicles Rules, 1989 shall be the Regional Tranport Officer so appointed to
the region.
15. Section 40 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides that every
owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by
any registering authority in the State, in whose jurisdiction he has the
residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept,
thus, the aforesaid Section requires compulsory registration of the
vehicles and any use of the vehicle without registration attracts penal
provisions as provided under Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Section 53 provides for the powers of the registering authority
for suspension of the registration certificate if the registering authority
or other prescribed authority founds a vehicle running in violation of
13
any of the provisions of the Act or Rules framed therein and Section
54 and 55 further provides for cancellation of the registration in the
eventuality of suspension of the registration for more than six years
and in other eventualities.
16. It is only in these Sections that the powers of cancellation of
registration have been assigned to the authorities, who are the original
registering authorities but in both the Sections it has been mentioned
that if the authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was when
the registration was suspended, may if it is the original registering
authority, may cancel the registration but it is not the original
registering authority, then shall forward the certificate of registration
to that authority, which may cancel the registration, which goes to
imply that if the authority, who has suspended the registration is not
the original registering authority then for its cancellation it will have
to forward it to the original registering authority, thus, even the
authority other than the original registering authority has powers to
suspend the registration.
17. It is also noteworthy that sub-section 3 of Section 53 provides
that if the suspension of the registration of a motor vehicle under sub-
14
section (1) is for a continuous period of not less than one month, the
registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle was and
registration was suspended shall if it is not the original authority
inform the original authority of the suspension, which also implies
that the authority apart from the original registration authority has
powers to suspend the registration.
18. Now the question would be as to whether any registering
authority would be confined to registering authority of a State or
would even include in its clutches the authorities appointed as
registering authorities outside the State under their respective rules.
The rule making power so far as Chapter IV is concerned, is provide
under Section 65 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. For reference sub-
Section (2) of Section 65 is reproduced herein below:-
65. Power of State Government to make rules.–
(1) A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into
effect the provisions of this Chapter other than the matters specified in
section 64.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules
may provide for–
(a) the conduct and hearing of appeals that may be preferred under this
Chapter (the fees to be paid in respect of such appeals and the refund of
such fees);
(b) the appointment, functions and jurisdiction of registering and other
prescribed authorities;
(c) the exemption of road-rollers, graders and other vehicles designed and
used solely for the construction, repair and cleaning of roads from all or
any of the provisions of this Chapter and the rules made thereunder and the
conditions governing such exemption;
(d) the issue or renewal of certificates of registration and fitness and
duplicates of such certificates to replace the certificates lost, destroyed or
15mutilated;
(e) the production of certificates of registration before the registering
authority for the revision of entries therein of particulars relating to the
gross vehicle weight;
(f) the temporary registration of motor vehicles, and the issue of temporary
certificate of registration and marks;
(g) the manner in which the particulars referred to in sub-section (2) of
section 58 and other prescribed particulars shall be exhibited;
(h) the exemption of prescribed persons or prescribed classes of persons
from payment of all or any portion of the fees payable under this Chapter;
(i) the forms, other than those prescribed by the Central Government, to be
used for the purpose of this Chapter;
(j) the communication between registering authorities of particulars of
certificates of registration and by owners of vehicles registered outside the
State of particulars of such vehicles and of their registration;
(k) the amount or amounts under sub-section (13) of section 41 or sub-
section (7) of section 47 or sub-section (4) of section 49 or sub-section (5)
of section 50;
(l) the extension of the validity of certificates of fitness pending
consideration of applications for their renewal;
(m) the exemption from the provisions of this Chapter, and the conditions
and fees for exemption, of motor vehicles in the possession of dealers;
(n) the form in which and the period within which the return under section
62 shall be sent;
(o) the manner in which the State Register of Motor Vehicles shall be
maintained under section 63;
(p) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed.
19. Though, under the provisions of this Section rules have been
framed by the State of M.P. and State of Rajasthan but both are
confined to the appointment of the authorities, who could register a
vehicle but nowhere it has been mentioned or laid down that only the
said Authorities could exercise the powers under Section 53. Sub-
section (2) of Section 65 provides for the eventualities as mentioned
in clause (A) to (N). None of the aforesaid clauses covers the situation
as that of Section 53 and as per clause (P) of sub-section (2) of
Section 65 for any other matter, which is to be or may be prescribed
the rules can be framed but no such prescription is there, which would
16
have compelled the legislature to have interpreted the meaning of any
registering authority, thus, the contention of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner that provisions of Section 63 is to read in
conjugation with Section 53, 54 and 55 appears to be wholly
misconceived, as if it would have been the intention of the legislature
to have included in the definition of any registering authority, only the
registering authority, then it could have been specifically mentioned
in the said Section, as it has been mentioned in Section 54 and 55,
thus, the contention has no force and it is hereby negated.
20. Thus, this Court finds that the interpretation as arrived at by the
learned Single Judge, in paragraph 12 of the order is in consonance
with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed therein.
21. So far as the reasoning given by the Single Judge on the point
of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 57 is
concerned, Section 57 provides that any person aggrieved by an order
of registering authority under Sections 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50,
52, 53, 55 and 56 may within thirty days of date on which he has
received the notice of such order, appeal against the order of the
prescribed authority, therefore, the said finding cannot be said to be
17
perverse and it had rightly been held that in wake of availability of
alternate remedy the merits of the case cannot be gone into, thus,
present appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed and admission is
declined.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUNITA YADAV) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
SHASH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09
e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27
eaa2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
ANK
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EA
ADE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197
DF0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2025.01.07 18:23:24 +05'30'