Review application regarding rejection of a writ petition where the petitioner sought to register a motor vehicle four years and two months after temporary registration expired. The court held the delay could not be condoned under State Rules.
Review application dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Review Application No.53 of 2022
in
W.P.No.25908 of 2021
Manimuthu ... Applicant Vs 1.The Regional Transport Officer, Salem (West), Salem.
Prayer: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 to review the order dated 04.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.25908 of 2021.
For Applicant : Mr.A.Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Review Application has been filed to review the order passed
by this Court in W.P.No.25908 of 2021 dated 04.01.2022.
1/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
2. The applicant herein was the writ petitioner before this Court in
the said writ petition where he sought for a mandamus to entertain his application submitted by him to register his Motor Vehicle (Car) bearing Chasis No.MA1XK2WJXH6G45047, Engine No.WJH6G49459 on 02.11.2021.
3. The fact remains that the writ petitioner purchased the light Motor Vehicle (Car) on 01.09.2017 and he had applied and obtained a temporary Registration number i.e. TN30BJT0183 and the said temporary registration certificate was valid only upto 30.09.2017.
4. Thereafter, within the said period i.e. on or before the expiry of the temporary certificate, the petitioner ought to have made an application to the authority concerned under Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act'). The period prescribed in this regard by the Central Government is reflected in Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short 'the Central Rules), where, it makes clear that under Rule 47(1)(f), along with other certificates when an application is made by the vehicle owner who wanted to register a vehicle on permanent basis, certain documents have to be produced including the temporary registration certificate if any.
2/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
5. Here the case is that, the petitioner admittedly got a temporary registration, therefore when he makes an application under Section 41 of the Act, he should have annexed all those documents and filed the application before the expiry of the temporary registration time along with the copy of temporary registration certificate.
6. However, the petitioner admittedly made this application only on
02.11.2021 whereas the vehicle was temporarily registered on 01.09.2017. Therefore, after four years and two months, when this application was made that was not entertained or rejected by the Transport authorities, as against which, he sought for the said mandamus before this Court in the said writ petition.
7. This Court having considered the rule position that is Section 41 of the Act as well as Rule 47(1) and (2) of the Rules had rejected the writ petition stating that, since the application was filed after four years and in the meanwhile from 01.04.2021 the BS-IV pattern vehicle would not be registered as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also brought to the notice of this Court.
3/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
8. Accordingly, the said writ petition was rejected by the said
order, which is sought to be reviewed.
9. Mr.A.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that, the relevant rule is Rule 98 of the Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Rules (in short 'the State Rules') which reads thus:
“98. D elay in applying for registration or for renewal of registration — compounding fee.—
Where there is delay on the part of the owner in making application for registration or for the renewal of a certificate of registration of a motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle under sub-section (1) or as the case may be under subsection (8) of section 41, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under section 177, an amount specified in the Table below:—
THE TABLE
| Period of delay Amount | Amount |
|---|---|
| (1) | (2) Rs. |
| 1. for a period not exceeding 30 days | ... ... 40 |
| 2. for a period exceeding 30 days | |
| but not exceeding 60 days | ... ... 75 |
| 3. for a period exceeding 60 days | ... ... 100 |
4/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
for the respondents who would submit that, insofar as the Rule 1998 is 5/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
concerned, it cannot be interpreted as per the convenient of the owner of the vehicle. Moreover, the Rule 98 of the State Rules cannot go or runs contra to the provisions of the Act. The Government has specifically stated under Section 41 that application shall be made in prescribed format with particulars before a particular period to be fixed by the Central Government in this regard and the Central Government under Rule has already prescribed the period and in case of permanent registration where the temporary registration has already been obtained by the vehicle owner that application should have been made within 30 days and in the case in hand, the petitioner since has made application admittedly after four years, the Rule 98 of the State Rules cannot be stretched upon as has been sought to be interpreted and therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would vehemently contend that this review application is deserved to be rejected.
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the Rule 98 of the 6/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
State Rules cannot run beyond the scope of Section 41 read with Rule 41(1) and 41(8) of the Central Rules.
State Rules.
7/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
order as there is no error apparently on the face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed, hence this Review Application is deserved to be dismissed, accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.
17.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Sgl
To
8/9
Rev.Apln.No.53 of 2022
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Sgl
Rev.Appl.No.53 of 2022 in W.P.No.25908 of 2021
17.08.2022
9/9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 98 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, which allows payment of a token fee for delay, applies to condone a delay of over four years in registering a motor vehicle.
Whether a vehicle owner who obtained temporary registration can be permitted to apply for permanent registration after such a long lapse of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hon'ble Supreme CourtReferred¶57
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Manimuthu
The Regional Transport Officer, Salem (West), Salem
The Assistant Registering Authority Omalur, Salem District
R.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
