Kerala High Court
Rajasree Motors Private Limited vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23967 of 2007(C)
1. RAJASREE MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE,
4. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 23967 OF 2007 (C)
=====================
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The challenge is against Ext.P5, an order issued by the 4th respondent declining registration to a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle in question is a Mercedes Benz S 500 L, a light motor vehicle run on petrol with 5462 CC capacity, manufactured by Daimler Chrysler AG of Stuttgart Germany and imported by Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited, whose dealer is the petitioner. The basic price of the vehicle is Rs.1,09,49,406.26 and on import, the vehicle was sold by the petitioner, dealer of Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited. Exts.P3 and P4 are the sale certificate and the invoice issued by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on completion of the sale, they made an application to the 4th respondent for registration of the vehicle, which was rejected by Ext.P5 stating that registration cannot be granted in the absence of proto type approval certificate as contemplated under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the requirement WPC 23967/07 :2 : of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules are exempted in the case of a vehicle of the above specifications and reliance is placed on Ext.P1, the foreign trade policy framed by the Government of India for the year 2004-09 in exercise of their powers under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Counsel also points out Ext.P2 judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.14056/05 directing registration of a similar vehicle imported in similar circumstances.
3. When this writ petition came up for admission, taking note of Ext.P2 judgment referred to above, this court has already directed that registration be granted to the vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle has since been registered.
Taking into account the above, particularly Ext.P2, and the fact that pursuant to an interim order passed in this writ petition, the vehicle has been registered, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the registration granted to the vehicle in question shall be regularised by the 4th respondent.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp