The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 27548 of 2025 Arnapurna Behera ..…... Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarat Kumar Behera, Adv. State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Party (s) -Versus- Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel (for Transport Department) Mr. Lalitendu Bhuyan, Adv. (for O.P.4) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER 31.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary and plenary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Opposite Parties — and in particular Opposite Party No.2, the Regional Transport Officer, Balasore — to forthwith effect registration and allot a valid registration number in respect of the Petitioner’s vehicle. The relief so sought rests upon the alleged inaction and dereliction of duty on the part of the concerned Order No. 01. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54 2 authorities and the authorized dealer, resulting in the denial of the Petitioner’s statutory entitlement to registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, with considerable emphasis, submits that the Petitioner had lawfully purchased a John Deere 5042D Tractor from Opposite Party No.4 — Utkal Agro Agency, Balasore — as far back as in the year 2021. The purchase was effectuated through a lawful transaction and in due course of business, the Petitioner having remitted a sum of ₹45,000/- towards registration fees and allied charges as demanded by the dealer. Notwithstanding such payment and compliance with all procedural requisites, the vehicle has not been registered till date. The failure, it is contended, stems solely from the gross negligence, dereliction of statutory obligation, and administrative indifference exhibited by Opposite Party No.4, who was duty-bound to ensure the forwarding of all relevant documents and payments to the registering authority in accordance with law. It is thus submitted that the Petitioner, despite being a bona fide purchaser and law-abiding citizen, continues to be deprived of the legitimate fruits of ownership, thereby suffering undue financial and operational hardship. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54 3 5. It is further submitted that as a direct consequence of the continuing non-registration of the said vehicle, the same came to be seized by the Opposite Party No.3 /Inspector-in- Charge, Oupada Police Station. The seizure, counsel contends, is wholly unjustified in law, being premised upon the absence of registration, whereas the root cause of such absence lies not in any omission on the part of the Petitioner but in the gross failure of Opposite Party No.4 to discharge its legal obligations. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner, having duly complied with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, cannot be penalized or prejudiced on account of the fault of an intermediary who, in the eyes of law, acted as an agent in the performance of a statutory function ancillary to registration.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel has further drawn attention to the fact that the Petitioner had furnished all requisite documents, including the sale certificate, proof of address, and other relevant particulars, along with the prescribed registration fee, to Opposite Party No.4 for onward transmission to the competent registering authority. The inaction of the said Opposite Party in performing the ministerial and statutory duty of facilitating registration constitutes, it is urged, a breach of public duty attracting the equitable jurisdiction of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54 4 this Court. Ld Counsel for the petitioner further contends that such conduct also offends the doctrine of legitimate expectation, inasmuch as a citizen who deals with a licensed dealer, operating under the regulatory control of the Transport Department, is entitled to expect that such dealer shall discharge all obligations mandated under law without omission or delay. 7. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the submissions advanced at the Bar and upon meticulous perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is constrained to observe that the Petitioner’s predicament is a direct manifestation of administrative apathy and the indifference of a statutory intermediary. The factual matrix, as it stands, leaves no manner of doubt that the Petitioner has acted in good faith and has neither been remiss nor negligent in discharging the obligations cast upon her by statute. The fault, both in fact and in law, lies squarely with Opposite Party No.4, whose omission to transmit the necessary documents and remittance to the registering authority has occasioned the entire controversy. 8. This Court cannot remain a passive onlooker to such a situation wherein a citizen, despite full compliance with statutory formalities, is rendered remediless by the inaction of an intermediary operating under the aegis of the State’s Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54 5 regulatory regime. The principle of administrative accountability, which underlies Article 14 of the Constitution, mandates that public or quasi-public entities discharging statutory functions be answerable for acts of omission that result in deprivation of legal rights. In the present case, Opposite Party No.4’s conduct not only undermines the statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act but also infringes the Petitioner’s legitimate expectation of prompt and lawful registration of her vehicle. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice demand that the Petitioner, who has suffered unwarranted hardship due to no fault of her own, be duly compensated. Accordingly, this Court holds Opposite Party No.4 /Utkal Agro Agency, Balasore — responsible for the lapses in question and deems it appropriate to impose a compensatory cost of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) upon the said Opposite Party. The Opposite Party No.4 shall pay the aforesaid amount to the Petitioner along with all the necessary vehicle related document which have been not shared by the Opposite Party No.4 with the Transport Authority, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the said Opposite Party shall render itself liable to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54 1971. 6 10. Simultaneously, the Petitioner is directed to approach the competent registering authority along with all requisite documents, including a certified copy of this judgment. Upon such presentation, the authority concerned shall ensure that the vehicle in question is duly registered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of such submission, in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. 11. Since physical inspection and verification of the vehicle constitute a statutory precondition for registration, the Inspector-in-Charge, Oupada Police Station is hereby directed to forthwith release the vehicle in question to the Petitioner. It is further directed that the said authority shall not cause any impediment, obstruction, or harassment during the transit of the vehicle from the Police Station or the Petitioner’s residence to the Office of the Transport Authority for the limited and specific purpose of registration. 12. It is, however, clarified that until the registration process is duly completed in conformity with the statutory provisions, the vehicle shall not be used, operated, or deployed for any commercial or personal purpose. 13. The Opposite Party No.4 is further directed to furnish forthwith to the Petitioner all documents required under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, including Form 21 (Sale Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54 7 Certificate) and Form 22 (Roadworthiness Certificate), together with any ancillary papers necessary for the expeditious registration of the vehicle. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion and directions, this writ
Decision
petition stands disposed of. There shall be no further order as to costs beyond what has already been directed hereinabove. Murmu ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:30:54