Kerala High Court
P.Ramanathan vs Regional Transport Officer ... on 30 April, 2016
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY,THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 18821 of 2016 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
1. P.RAMANATHAN,
PROPRIETOR, M/S. SRIRAM & CO.
253 L 12 ANBU NAGAR, CHAVADY STREET, NAMAKKAL,
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT 19/574, CHANDANAMKURISSI,
NURANI, PALAKKAD-678 004
2. RAGHUNATHAN,
PROPRIETOR M/S. GOKUL CARRIERS,
CHINNAKARASSAPALAYAM, PARAMATHI VELUR, NAMAKKAL,
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT 25/154, THOTTUNKAL ROAD,
PUTHUPALLY STREET,YAKKARA, PALAKKAD-678 004
3. V.MAHESWARI,
PROPRIETOR, M/S. VASANTHAM TRANSPORT,
14A 1, SWAMY NAGAR, SELEM ROAD, NAMAKKAL,
HAVING HER OFFICE AT 33/283, VENNAKKARA, NURANI,
PALAKKAD-678 004
4. V. SUBRAMANIAM, 52 E, PAZHANIYANDI STREET,
THIRUCHAMKODE ROAD, NAMAKKAL
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT 17/217, NARIKUTHI,
PALAKKAD,PIN- 678 001
5. VEERAPPAN.S, NO.26, KAVATTIPATTI, NAMAKKAL
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT 6/450,SS BUILDING, MARUTHA ROAD,
CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 007.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SMT.A.ANJANA
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------------
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING AUTHORITY),
PALAKKAD-678 001
2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.18821/2016
2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.A.SANJEETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 18821 of 2016 (C)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF ONE SUCH PROVISIONAL LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI ON 20.02.2015 IN THE NAME
OF THE FIRM OWNED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
P2 TRUE EXTRACT OF CLAUSE 10(D) OF THE GENERAL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF TENDER FOR TRANSPORTATION OF BULK LPG BY ROAD
ISSUED BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
P3 TRUE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE
NO.KL-70-5059
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE
NO.KL-70-1287
P5 TRUE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-70-5638
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE
NO.KL-9AK-1387 ON 30-10-2015 WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P7 TRUE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE KL-9AG-8464
REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE.
P8 TRUE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE KL-9AG-8470
REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF 1ST RESPONDENT OFFICE
P9 TRUE OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9-AA-469
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9-
AA-496 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9-
AA-569 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER
P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9-
AA-5902 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER
P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9-
AA-5911 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER
2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.18821/2016
P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-9-
AK-1287 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH
PETITIONER
P15 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS RECORDED IN
THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.TN-28-AJ-5645 FILED BY
THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 07-05-2016
P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE RTO, NAMAKKAL, NORTH ON
07.04.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 30-04-2016 ISSUED BY THE
M/S. TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS, COCHIN-17 IN THE NAME OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
P18 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION MARK RELATING TO
VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P17
P19 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE
M/S. TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS, COCHIN-17 IN THE NAME OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
P20 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION MARK RELATING TO
VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P19
P21 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE
M/S. TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS, COCHIN-17 IN THE NAME OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER.
P22 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION MARK RELATING TO
VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P21
P23 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 07/05/2016 ISSUED BY
THE MS/. TV SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS, COCHIN-17 IN THE NAME
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
P24 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION MARK RELATING TO
VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P23
P25 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/09/2015 ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICR YAKKARA VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P26 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/05/2014 ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICR YAKKARA VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P27 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/05/2016 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICR PALAKKAD I VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF THE 3RD
PETITIONER TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
3/-
-3-
WP(C).NO.18821/2016
P28 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/09/2015 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICR PALAKKAD I VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH
PETITIONER TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P29 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICR, MARUTHA ROAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD ON 09/05/2014 TO BE
PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
SHAJI P. CHALY, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent to accept applications for permanent registration and grant registration for the new vehicle covered by Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 and register the vehicle in accordance with the provisions of Section 40 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules in the address shown in Exts.P3 to P14 certificates.
2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus;
Petitioners herein are transport contractors engaged for bulk LPG transportation contract by road for the period commencing from 2001-2017 with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai. Petitioners hail from Tamilnadu. For the purpose of their business they are temporarily residing in difference places at Palakkad District. Petitioners are aggrieved by the non-receipt of Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications by the respondent for registration of the new vehicles purchased by them for replacing the stage carriage with respect to Exts.P3 W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016 2 to P14 registration certificates. It is the contention of the petitioners that a temporary registration for the new vehicle was obtained, body was constructed and submitted Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications for registration of new vehicle along with all the relevant documents.
3. But however the respondent authority has refused to accept Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications for the reason that address proof envisaged under Rule 4 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules has not been furnished by the petitioners. Legal contention raised by the petitioners is that as per Section 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept. The contention of the petitioners is that, in accordance with the said provision, petitioners have produced Exts.P25 to P29 certificates of residence issued by the respective Village Officers, Palakkad in order to establish that petitioners are having a place of business at Palakkad District.
4. That apart it is contended by the petitioners that all W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016 3 the other vehicles of the petitioners including the vehicles for which replacements are sought is registered by the very same registering authority under the very same residence proof provided by the petitioners. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the non-receipt of Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications by the respondent is violative of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and therefore, aggrieved by the the same, petitioners are constrained to approach this court by filing the writ petition seeking the requisite reliefs.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
6. The question to be considered in this case is whether the petitioners have provided necessary proof as provided under Rule 4 and 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules so as to enable the petitioner to get the vehicle registered as per Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications. Admittedly petitioners are permanent resident of Tamilnadu, and the documents like driving licence, electoral ID etc. etc. are issued to the petitioners with the permanent address at Tamilnadu and therefore, the same are not sufficient enough to prove the W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016 4 residence of the petitioners in Kerala. Any how petitioners have produced certificates from the Village Officers to establish that petitioners are having an office at Palakkad District. That apart I find from the records and pleadings that all the vehicles owned by the petitioners are registered by the petitioners before the very same registering authority in the address presently shown by the petitioner in Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications. On a perusal of Rule 4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, it is categoric and clear that several identity proofs are provided and the applicants are at liberty to produce any of the same in order to establish the address proof as well as the age proof. That apart a residuary provision as per sub-rule 12 is made enabling the applicants to produce a sworn affidavit attested by an Executive Magistrate or the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate or a Notary Public as evidence of age and address.
7. Admittedly petitioners have not produced the affidavit attested by any such authority. On the other hand petitioners have chosen to produce the certificates issued by the Village Officers to prove their address at Palakkad District.
8. Being a resident of State of Tamil Nadu, petitioners W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016 5 may not be in a position to produce the certificates provided under Rule 4 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. It is with the intention to tide over such a situation that sub-rule 11 is provided to Rule 4 whereby any other document or documents as may be prescribed by the State Government under Clause
(k) of Section 28 can be taken into account for the purpose of identifying the age and address of the applicants.
9. Article 301 of the Constitution of India provides freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse to the citizens throughout the territory of India freely. Therefore, merely because petitioner is a resident of Tamil Nadu and they have only the identity proof as per Rule 4, issued by the authorities at Tamil Nadu, petitioners cannot be prohibited from carrying out any business anywhere in the country subject to restrictions provided by the respective State Governments with respect to plying of the vehicle or tax etc. etc. That being the position, the respondent cannot insist that the proof provided under Rule 4, sub-rules 2 to 10 alone will be considered for the purpose of identifying the age and address proof within the territory of the respondent registering authority. In this case petitioners have produced a certificate W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016 6 from the respective Village Officers, Palakkad along with Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 application, by virtue of which, the respondent will be at liberty to make due enquiries and take appropriate decision on the same. Petitioners can also be provided with time if required to produce a certificate from any of the authorities mentioned under the proviso to Rule 4 also.
10. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am inclined to issue a direction to the respondent to receive Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications from the petitioners along with the documents appended thereto and consider the same within a time frame.
11. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to receive Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P24 applications along with all the documents required for the purpose of the registration of the vehicle and consider the same in accordance with law also taking into account the observations made above. If the registering authority is not satisfied with the certificate issued by the respective Village Officers, the registering authority will be at liberty to carry out necessary enquiry in order to identify the bonafide residence of petitioners within the W.P.(C) No. 18821 of 2016 7 territorial jurisdiction of the respondent authority. That apart the authority will be at liberty to consider any of the certificates produced by the petitioners as provided under the proviso to Rule 4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. If the State Government has issued any notification under Section 28(k) enabling the applicants to produce proof other than provided under Rule 4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the same shall also be taken into consideration by the Registering Authority. The Registering Authority will also take into account the fact that other vehicles operated by the petitioners are registered by the Registering Authority in the very same address. Any how a decision shall be taken in that regard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
dlk/6/6/