Allowed

Hashim a. v. the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority Cum the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020WP(C)/14173/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC directed authorities to register BS-IV vehicles purchased pre-lockdown but unregistered due to COVID restrictions, relying on Apex Court order allowing such temporary registrations.

What did the court decide?

Directing Registering Authority and NIC to complete vehicle registration within 30 days upon filing application in Form No.20 with certificates under Rule 47 CMVR 1989.

Hashim a. Vs the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HASHIM A., S/O ABOOBACKER, KOOTTUNGAL, PUNNAPRA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.P.ASHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERING AUTHORITY CUM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER COLLECTORATE P.O.ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶11

*ADDL R2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL AND STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, NIC KERALA STATE CENTRE, CDAC BUILDING, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 030.

¶12

*ADDL R3 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER OF KERALA, TRANS BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKKAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 605 014.

¶13

*ADDL R4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THE ROAD AND SURFACE TRANSPORTS, MINISTRY, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶14

ADDL R2, R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.9.2020 IN I.A.2/2020 IN WP(C) 14173 OF 2020.

¶15

R4 BY SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC

¶16

SRI K.P HARISH SR GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V) 2

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

~~~~~~~~

¶21

The petitioner purchased two heavy good carriage vehicles conforming to the emission standard of Bharat State (BS-IV) as per Exts.P1 and P2 invoices dated 31.7.2019. Those vehicles were temporarily registered on 15.10.2019 as is evident from Ext.P7 and P8 temporary certificates of registration. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the Registering Authority in registering his vehicles. He contend that it is pursuant to directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order in W.P. (C) No.13209 of 1985 that directions were issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (‘MoRTH’ for short) that vehicle registration through the ‘PARIVAHAN’ site maintained by the National Informatics Center (‘NIC’ for short) shall not be carried out after 31.3.2020. The petitioner contends that he had purchased the vehicles much prior to the cutoff date and he had obtained temporary registration as well. He was not in a position to register the vehicles and obtain a certificate of registration under Rule 48 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 since the offices of the Registering Authority were closed due to the restrictions imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.

¶22

Sri.K.P.Harish, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

¶23

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V) 3

¶24

State submitted that the records produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition which include the purchase invoice, sale certificate, certificate of temporary registration under Rule 94 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 etc., would show that he had purchased the vehicles prior to the cutoff date and those vehicles were also temporarily registered with the registering authority. It is submitted that the vehicles could not be registered owing to the fact that the offices of the registering authority were closed owing to the pandemic. It is submitted that attempts made by the Registering authority to access the ‘PARIVAHAN’ site thereafter proved futile. He also submitted that there are no materials to suggest that the petitioner has made any attempts to defeat the orders of the Supreme Court.

¶25

The NIC as well as the MoRTH were impleaded as additional respondents to ascertain their stand.

¶26

R.Sudhin Kumar, the learned Central Government Counsel submitted that access was denied to the registering authority in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, it was submitted that by order dated 13.8.2020, passed in M.C. Mehta v Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 13029 of 1985), the Apex Court has allowed registration of such vehicles which could not be registered during lockdown in the month of March, 2020 and which were temporarily registered prior to the cut off date in all other places except Delhi and NCR. It is submitted that in view of the said directions, the MoRTH by letter dated 19.8.2020 has written to all States

¶27

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V) 4

¶28

and NIC to ensure compliance of the orders in regard to registration of BS-IV vehicles.

¶29

I have considered the submissions. The relevant paragraph in order dated 13.8.2020 in W.P. (C) No.13029 of 1985 of the Apex Court reads thus:

¶30

"Considered the rival arguments. The lockdown was imposed from 25.03.2020. The sales data has been furnished for the lockdown period by FADA and NonFADA Members for the period with effect from 15.03.2020. There are unusually a large number of transactions, which had taken place during the lockdown period inter se dealers, which cannot be recognised for the purpose of actual sales and registration. We disallow the registration on the basis of such kind of transactions inter se dealers. As they are not sales to the customers and registration of these kinds of vehicles cannot be allowed, there is a ploy to misuse of the order and such vehicles cannot be permitted to be sold in market now. They are not genuine transactions of the sale to the customers. Hence, no registration of such kind of vehicles shall be made, which were sold inter se dealers during the lockdown period.

¶31

Apart from that, there are large number of vehicles, sales of which were not uploaded on E-Vaahan Portal. Since, sales were not uploaded, as required, the transactions cannot be recognised as genuine sales. The order passed by this Court on 24.10.2018 is clear that sale and registration of BS-IV vehicles shall not be allowed after 31.03.2020. We cannot allow the registration of such vehicles, sales of which were not uploaded on E-Vaahan Portal of the Central Government or the portal of the concerned State Government.

¶32

There are still stated to be a large number of sales

¶33

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V) 5

¶34

which have been made and uploaded on the E-Vaahan Portal, even temporary registrations were made. Their registration during the lockdown period could not be made. Hence, we allow registration of such vehicles only which could not be registered during lockdown in the month of March, 2020 and for no other reason. However, the position of Delhi and NCR is different. (emphasis supplied)

¶35

We clarify our order dated 27.03.2020 to the effect that no registration of BS-IV vehicles is to be made in Delhi and NCR as people are suffering from severe air pollution and the order passed by this Court in 2018 was clear. vehicle of BS-IV in Delhi and NCR to be registered. We order that in the Delhi and NCR, no registration of the vehicles of BS-IV is to be made after 31.03.2020, This order is for the rest of the country and only due to lockdown, not to be used for any other purpose reason and for registration of other vehicles of which registration was not done for any other reason. (emphasis supplied)

¶36

I find from the records produced that the vehicles involved in this

¶37

case was purchased much prior to the cut off date and it was temporarily registered. He was prevented from getting the vehicles registered owing to the lockdown imposed due to the pandemic and the blockage of the site

¶38

later. Now that the Apex Court has clarified the position, the petitioner cannot be denied registration.

¶39

Resultantly, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file an application for registration, if the same has not been filed till date, before

¶40

the registering authority in Form No.20 within 10 days from today accompanied by the certificates made mention of in Rule 47 of the Central

¶41

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V) 6

¶42

Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. If the application is in order, the Registering Authority shall issue a Certificate of registration ensuring compliance of the conditions stipulated in Rule 48 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. To enable the Registering Authority to carry out Registration, the NIC shall provide access and facilitate the process through the ‘PARIVAHAN’ site. The entire procedure shall be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the application.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

sru/17/9/2020

¶47

WP(C).No.14173 OF 2020(V) 7

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 31.7.	COPY OF THE 2019	TAX INVOICE DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE 31.7.	COPY OF THE 2019	TAX MOVICE DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE FORM	COPY OF THE NO 21 ISSUED	SALE CERTIFICATE IN TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE FORM	COPY OF THE NO 21 ISSUED	SALE CERTIFICATE IN TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE	COPY OF THE	COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE	COPY OF THE	COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE WITH	COPY OF THE ITS NO KL/4/	TEMPORARY REGISTRATION TMP/2019/7482
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE WITH	COPY OF THE ITS NO KL/4/	TEMPORARY REGISTRATION TMP/2019/7483
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE 7.4.2	COPY OF THE 017	ARAI CERTIFICATE DATED
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE 16.6.	COPY OF THE 2020 IN WPC	JUDGMENT DATED NO 11188/2020

¶51

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Hashim a. v. the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority Cum the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashim a. v. the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority Cum the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joby T.J Vs the District Police Chief

Binu S., Vs C.G.Vinod

Jose Moothedan, Vs Shri. David John

Asha Reji Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sherlinkumari R. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Aji Raj Vs Managing Director, Milma