Disposed¶34

Kapileshwar Duggal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jun 2025WPC/2501/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPC No. 2501 of 2025; Arvind Kumar Verma, J.; vehicle registration renewal refused; Vahan 2.0 to Vahan 4.0 data migration technical glitch; NOC for vehicle transfer from Sonbhadra (UP) to Korba; lifetime motor vehicle tax paid 01.10.2010; District Transport Officer Korba; Transport Commissioner; representation and correspondence for record correction; District Consumer Commission Korba complaint dismissed 28.03.2025; senior citizen retired petitioner; Motor Vehicle Act 1988; mandamus-type direction to decide renewal application within 30 days; petition disposed; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the petitioner's application for renewal of registration of his vehicle as per the law/rules/regulations within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Kapileshwar Duggal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to update the record of the petitioner's vehicle in their software and renew its registration without penalty from the date of expiry, where the renewal application was filed before expiry but could not be processed because the vehicle data was not available in Vahan 4.0 due to a technical glitch.

¶20

Court's answer

This Court found that the petitioner is suffering due to a technical glitch: correction of the vehicle records could not be carried out, and the details of the petitioner's vehicle are not available in Vahan 4.0 data (while available in Vahan 2.0).

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to decide the petitioner's application for renewal of registration of his vehicle as per the applicable law/rules/regulations within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 2501 of 2025, decided 09.06.2025) — vehicle registration — petitioner, transferred to Korba in 2010, obtained NOC (No. 393 dated 13.09.2010) from Sonbhadra (UP), secured fresh registration at DTO Korba with confirmations dated 26.07.2011 and 24.09.2011, and paid lifetime motor vehicle tax on 01.10.2010; renewal application of August 2021 was not accepted as the vehicle data existed in Vahan 2.0 but was not available in Vahan 4.0 despite correspondence for correction; complaint before District Consumer Commission, Korba dismissed on 28.03.2025. Held: the petitioner was suffering due to a technical glitch and non-updation/correction of records; respondent nos. 2 (Transport Commissioner) and 3 (DTO, Korba) directed to decide the renewal application as per law/rules/regulations within 30 days. Petition disposed of. (Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 referred; no precedent engaged.)

2025:CGHC:22574

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2501 of 2025

¶6

Kapileshwar Duggal S/o Late Ram Prakash Duggal Aged About 69 Years Maa Durga Bhawan Plot No 74, Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Nagar, Jamnipali, Korba, Tahsil Darri, Civil And Revenue District Korba (C.G.) Pin 495450

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Dept. Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Transport Commissioner Chhattisgarh Transport Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - District Transport Officer Transport Office, Korba Tahsil Korba, Civil And Revenue District Korba (C.G.) Pin 495450

¶12

. .. Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

09.06.2025

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking

¶18

following reliefs:-

¶19

(a) that, the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner be called for perusal.

¶20

(b) that the respondents be directed to update record of the vehicle of the petitioner in their software and renew the registration of the vehicle without penalty from the date of expiry. The application for renewal was filed prior to expiry of registration and further renewal in future after compliance of proper norms.

¶21

(c) That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem

¶22

¶23

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances fo the case.

¶24

The matter in brief is such that the petitioner was an employee of the National Thermal Corporation of India, who was transferred to Korba, Chhattisgarh in the year 2010. He obtained No Objection Certificate(NOC) for transfer of his vehicle which was obtained from Office of Assistant Transport Commissioner Office Sonbhadra (UP) ans was issued to petitioner vide NOC No. 393 dated 13.09.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for providing new registration number at the Office of District Transport Office, Korba on 01.10.2010 for which letter for confirmation was issued by the District Transport Office on 26.07.2011( Annexure P/2) and confirmation was provided to District Transport Office Korba by Office of Assistant Transport Commissioner Office Sonbhadra (U.P.) vide confirmation dated 24.09.2011 (Annexure P/3). Petitioner deposited Motor Vehicle Tax for remaining period of registration. After expiry of the registration period the petitioner tried to extend period of registration which was not accepted by respondent no. 3 as the details of record of petitioner’s vehicle were not available in Vahan 4.0 whereas the same was available in Vahan 2.0.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner continuously made representation before respondent no. 2 and 3. Respondent no. 3 made correspondence with office of respondent no. 2 for making correction in data of the petitioner’s vehicle in official record (Annexure P/7 and P/8). Being aggrieved by the approach taken by respondent no. 2 and 3, petitioner preferred

¶26

¶27

complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Korba, Chhattisgarh which was dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2025( Annexure P/9). Certificate for further period as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 could not be complied due to technical glitch as reflected in Annexure P/4, P/7 and P/8. The respondent no. 3 has failed to maintain their record in updating from Vahan 2.0 to Vahan 4.0 and correction of records is within the domain of respondent no. 2 and he is not taking care of updating record of the vehicle owned by the petitioner. Due to which the petitioner is suffering, who is a senior citizen and is a retired person who do not have sufficient funds to buy new vehicle and adapt the operating of new version of vehicle.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

On bare perusal of the record available this court finds that the petitioner obtained no objection certificate for transfer of his vehicle and after reaching Korba, Chhattisgarh the petitioner applied for providing for new registration, for which the letter for confirmation was issued (Annexure P/2). On getting transfer of the vehicle the respondent no. 3 allowed petitioner to pay lifetime motor vehicle tax for state of Chhattisgarh which was paid on 01.10.2010. In the month of August, 2021 petitioner applied for renewal of registration certificate which was verified by respondent no. 3. Petitioner continuously made representations before

¶31

¶32

respondent no. 2 and 3. respondent no. 3 made correspondence with office of respondent no. 2 for making correction in data of the petitioner’s vehicle in official records. Being aggrieved by the approach taken by the respondent no. 2 and 3, petitioner preferred complaint before the District Consumer Commission Korba which too got dismissed.

¶33

Certificate for further period as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which could not be complied due to technical glitch and correction of records could not be carried out and details of record of petitioner’s vehicle were not available in Vahan 4.0 data whereas the same is available in Vahan 2.0 data. Hence looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the petitioner is suffering due to the technical glitch and the correction of records could not be carried out and details of record of petitioner’s vehicle is not available in Vahan 4.0 data. Therefore, respondent no. 2 and 3 is directed to decide the application of renewal of registration of the petitioner’s vehicle as per the law/rules/regulation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶34

With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is accordingly disposed of. sd/-

¶35

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶36

alfiza

Kapileshwar Duggal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapileshwar Duggal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Samuel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharat Lal Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lata Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kamin Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh