Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ANIMA HAZARIKA
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 49
Judgment
Heard Mr. SS Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also he ard Mr. U Rajsaikia, learned Standing counsel, Transport Department. Considering the grievance raised in the writ petition and as agreed to b y the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to immediately release the original registration certific ate and other seized documents of the petitioners’ vehicle bearing registration No. ML-04-A-2631 which was seized by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 05.10.2009 on th e ground that the vehicle of the petitioners was registered at Meghalaya. The pe titioners’ further case is that inspite of the statement made by the Driver of t he Vehicle that the petitioners’ company has its factory at Meghalaya, the vehic le belongs to the petitioners’ company in its own name and in course of their bu siness the vehicle has to keep plying between Assam and Meghalaya frequently, th e respondent No.4 i.e. the Motor Vehicle Inspector, seized the papers/documents of the vehicle taking advantage of the Driver, who being illiterate was made to sign in the document/seizure list and thereafter seized the vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1982 (Rules for short).
Hence the instant writ peti tion with the aforesaid prayer. Mr. Rajsaikia on the basis of the written instruction received from the Department has submitted that normally if a vehicle of other State is permanentl y removed or ceases to remain in that State where it was originally registered, the owner of the vehicle should record change of address of the vehicle within 3 0 days in the new State as per Section 49 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Further wh en a vehicle is registered in one State and kept in another State for more than 12 months, the owner should change his vehicle’s registration number in the new State as per Section 49 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Dey on the other hand submits that the petitioners’ vehicle has been registered at Meghalaya, inasmuch as, the petitioners’ company itself has been registered at Meghalaya and is having its place of business in Meghalaya. Theref ore, permanently removing the registered Office of the petitioners’ company and/ or the vehicle does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Operative part
The pe titioners’ company is still running at Meghalaya at its registered Office and fo r business purpose, the vehicle belonging to the company has to ply between Assa m and Meghalaya. In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing fo r the parties, in my considered opinion, the instant writ petition may be dispos ed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit a representation before the District Transport Officer, Kamrup, stating therein all the relevant facts clear ly and after receipt of the representation so submitted by the petitioners, the District Transport Officer shall dispose of the same in accordance with law with in a period of 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of the representation. Whi le submitting the representation, the petitioners shall also submit the proof re garding the registered office of the petitioners’ company as well as the registr ation of the vehicle in the State of Meghalaya and the District Transport Office r shall pass necessary order(s) in the representation considering the proof so s ubmitted by the petitioners. Needless to say that the order passed in the representation shall be com municated to the petitioners forthwith. With the above direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of. Howe ver, there shall be no order as to costs.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction(s), this writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 49.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.