Orissa High Court
Satya Narayan Das vs Govt. Of India And Ors. on 2 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: II(1994)ACC133, AIR1995ORI253, AIR 1995 ORISSA 253, (1994) 77 CUT LT 696 (1994) 2 ACC 133, (1994) 2 ACC 133
Author: A.K. Patnaik
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, A.K. Patnaik
JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the vehicle checking report dated 26-3-93 (Annexure 1) and for declaring Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') as ultra vires the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for return of the documents seized by the authorities.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, an engineer serving under KALOD at Angul, owns a fiat car registered in the year 1972 bearing registration No. CRX 6100. The petitioner has been regularly paying tax for the said car to the registering authority, Dhenkanal, opposite party No. 2, and has also paid the tax for the period 1993-94. For all those years, the petitioner was never intimated by any authority that the certificate of registration of the petitioner is valid for a period of 15 years and has to be renewed thereafter. On 26-6-93 when the petitioner was travelling in the said car from Angul to Bhubaneswar to attend a marriage function, his car was stopped by the flying squad of the State Transport Authority and he was served with a vehicle checking report (Annexure 1) for alleged offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Article 1988 and a sum of Rs. 2,000/-was demanded from the petitioner for compounding the said offence. When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,000/-, the flying squad seized the certificate of registration and certificate of Insurance of the vehicle and directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Transport (Enforcement), opposite party No. 3, on 28-6-93. The petitioner appeared before the opposite party No. 3 on 28-6-93 and was asked to pay a minimum fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the purpose of compounding the offence under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner, however, expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- for compounding the offence and has filed the present writ application. One of the maximum amount that can be demanded by the authorities for the default on the part of the petitioner for not applying for renewal of the certificate for registration of his vehicle is Rs. 100/-.
3. Mr. G. P. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is at best guilty of not filing an application for renewal of the registration certificates of his vehicle as required under Sub-section (8) of Section 41 of the Act and is, therefore, liable for a maximum amount of Rs. 100/- under Sub-section (11) of Section 41 of the Act. Mr. Mohanty further submits that the petitioner is not liable under Section 192 of the Act for contravention of Section 39 and in the event it is held on the basis of what has been provided under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 52 of the Rules that the petitioner is liable for the offence under Section 192 of the Act, then the said Sub-rule (3) of Rule 52 is ultra vires the provisions contained in Section 41 of the Act.
4. Mr. S. Nayak, the learned standing Counsel (Transport) on the other hand contends that under Section 192 of the Act whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39, is punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- and Section 39 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit a vehicle to be driven in a public place or any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the Act and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled. According to Mr. Nayak, since the certificate of registration of the petitioner's vehicle was valid only for a period of 15 years from the date of issue of such registration certificate as provided under Sub-section (7) of Section 41 of the Act, the period of validity of the said registration certificate which was issued on 9-6-72 has long since expired and the said registration certificate could have continued to be valid only if it had been renewed in accordance with Sub-sections (8), (9) and (10) of Section 41 of the Act. Mr. Nayak further contends that in the absence of a valid registration certificate, it can be said that the petitioner's vehicle was not registered in accordance with Chapter VI of the Act and accordingly the petitioner had contravened Section 39 of the Act by driving the motor vehicle which was not registered in accordance with Chapter VI of the Act and was thus guilty of an offence under Section 192 of the Act and was liable for a maximum fine of Rs. 2,000/-.
5. It is difficult for us to accept this submission of Mr. Nayak. This is not a case where the motor vehicle has not been registered at all. This is also not a case where the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle has either been cancelled or suspended. This is a case where the vehicle had been registered but the period of validity of the certificate of registration had expired by virtue of Sub-section (7) of Section 41 of the Act and the petitioner had not applied for renewal of the certificate of registration as required by subsection (8) of Section 41 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules. Rule 52(3) of the Rules provides the circumstances in which a motor vehicle shall be treated as not registered for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act after expiry of the period of validity of the certificate of registration. The said Sub-rule (3) of Rule 52 of the Rules, is quoted herein below :--
"(3) A motor vehicle other than transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39, after the expiry of the period of validity entered in the certificate of registration and no such vehicle shall be used in any public place until its certificate of registration is renewed under Sub-rule (2)."
The aforesaid Sub-rule (3) makes it very clear that only where the period of validity as entered in the certificate of registration has expired, the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39 of the Act.
6. In the present case, we called upon the Standing Counsel (Transport) to produce the certificate of registration of motor vehicle bearing registration No. ORX 6100 seized by the flying squad and on a scrutiny of the said certificate of registration produced before us we find that no period of validity has been entered in the certificate of registration of the vehicle. Hence the Department cannot take recourse to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 53 to contend that the certificate of registration of the vehicle of the petitioner not having been renewed after expiry of its period of validity, the vehicle is to be treated as not registered and the petitioner is guilty of an offence under Section 192 read with Section 39 of the Act.
7. Mr. Nayak, however, submits that even though the present case does not fall within the express language of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 52, a logical interpretation of the various provisions in Section 41 of the Act would make it clear that in every case where the period of validity of a certificate of registration of a vehicle has expired and the certificate of registration has not been renewed the vehicle has to be treated as not registered for the purposes of Section 39 of the Act. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Nayak in view of the penal consequences under Section 192 of the Act for contravention of Section 39 of the Act. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that in construing a penal provision, a strict and literal interpretation of the actual words used in a statute has to be adopted. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Provincial Pottories Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 2429, the Supreme Court while interpreting a penal provision said (at p. 2433 of AIR) :
"...... where the words of the section are very clear it is unnecessary to consider whether it embodies any principle and whether that principle is consistant with the principle as embodied in certain other sections which are differently worded. In interpreting a penal provision it is not permissible to give an extended meaning to the plain words of the section on the ground that a principle recognised in respect of certain other provisions of law requires that this section should be interpreted in the same way."
We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that on the facts of the present case, the petitioner cannot be held liable for action under Section 192 of the Act as stated in the vehicle checking report (Annexure-1).
8. Our aforesaid conclusion, however, would not stand on the way of the Department taking action against the petitioner for not making an application for renewal of the certificate of registration under Sub-section (8) of Section 41 of the Act and we find that subsection (ii) of Section 41 of the Act provides for levy of an amount not exceeding Rs. 100/-on an owner for not making an application for renewal of the certificate of registration of his vehicle under Sub-section (8) of Sec. 41 of the Act within the prescribed period in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177 of the Act.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and on the premises stated above, we hold that the petitioner is not liable for any action under Section 192 of the Act as stated in the vehicle checking report (Annexure-1) but is liable for not making an application for renewal of the certificate of registration of his motor vehicle registered as ORX 6100 as is required under Sub-section (8) of the Section 41 of the Act. However, we direct that the petitioner shall file an application for renewal of the certificate of registration of his vehicle in the prescribed form along with prescribed fees before the registering authority within two weeks from today and the registering authority shall pass orders on the said application for renewal of certificate of registration in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of such application. For the default on the part of the petitioner in not making the application for renewal of the registration certificate earlier, the registering authority may pass an order requiring the petitioner to pay such amount not exceeding Rs. 100/- as provided under Sub-section (11) of Section 41 of the Act. Till appropriate orders are passed by the registering authority on the application for renewal as directed above, the certificate of registration and the certificate of insurance seized by the authorities may not be released in favour of the petitioner. In view of our aforesaid conclusions and directions, we do not feel it necessary to examine the vires of Rule 52 of the Rules.
10. The writ application is disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
D.P. Mohapatra, J.
11. I agree.