JUDGMENT
Anshuman Singh, J.
1. This special appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 1-6-1994 allowing the writ petition of the respondent in this appeal.
2. Facts giving rise to the present special appeal lie in narrow compass. The respondent purchased Vehicle No. GRW 2861 from Shri Mohammad Yusuf, resident of Datta, Gujarat. The agreement for the said transaction was executed on 21-2-1992. The respondent is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and the vehicle purchased by him was intended to be kept permanently in the State of Rajasthan. He brought the truck to Jaipur for carrying on transport business and established the office at B-34, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner is alleged to have brought the truck in the State of Rajasthan on 14-10-1992. After bringing the said vehicle, the respondent approached the District Transport Officer, Jhalana-Doonagari, Jaipur and requested him to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the respondent and also requested him to assign new registration mark. He was told that in the absence of no objection certificate, neither the ownership can be transferred nor new Registration Mark can be assigned. It is alleged that along with the application dated 2-7-1993, the respondent submitted to the District Transport Officer, appellant No. 2 the original registration certificate, original Form ‘G’, tax booklet, the original registry received, issued by the Post Office, the original acknowledgment received from the R.T.O., Palampur, application filed to the R.T.O., Palampur and Form No. 28 submitted to the R.T.O., Palampur. Again on 5-7-1993, the respondent submitted to the D.T.O. the original Form No. 27, original tax receipt issued at Abu Road Border, the original permit, challan
depositing the tax in the Bank and the photo-stat copy of the sale deed. The respondent received a letter dated 9-7-1993 from the District Transport Officer directing him to submit the documents. After receipt of the said letter, the respondent submitted an application on 13-7-1993, wherein he requested for transfer of ownership and assignment. The District Transport Officer, however, without providing any opportunity of hearing rejected the application of the respondent by order dated 30th July, 1993. The orderdated 30th July, 1993 passed by the District Transport Officer was received by the respondent on 5-8-1993 and after receipt of copy of the order, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) before the Regional Transport Officer (Appellate Authority), Jaipur Region, Jaipur. It was alleged by the respondent that the appeal was posted for hearing on 23-8-1993 before Shri Ajay Singh Chitora, R.T.O., Jaipur, before whom the respondent appeared on number of occasions, but no order was passed. It appears that in the meantime Shri Ajay Singh Chittora was transferred and Shri Kami Singh Rathore took over as R.T.O. and the appeal was listed before him on 28-8-1993 and 30-8-1993. It has been alleged that the appeal was adjourned on many dates. Ultimately, arguments were heard from both the sides, but the order was reserved and since the respondent did not hear anything from the R.T.O., Jaipur about the fate of his appeal, he was compelled to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction and filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 854/94, which was disposed of by this Court on 25-2-1994 directing the Regional Transport Officer to dispose of the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. After the directions issued by this Court, the appeal of the respondent was dismissed by order dated 4-4-1994. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has raised a very serious preliminary objection about the maintainability of the special appeal filed by the Regional Transport Officer (Appellate Authority) and the District Transport Officer (Registering Authority). Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the instant appeal has not been filed by the State of Rajasthan, which is mandatory by virtue of the provisions of Article 300 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the Regional Transport Officer and the District Transport Officer are not the independent statutory authorities but are functionaries of the Stale of Rajasthan and as such the appeal filed on their behalf is not competent. The only authority which could have filed an appeal in respect of the affairs of the State of Rajasthan was the Government of Rajasthan itself. He further contended that the Regional Transport Officer being the appellate authority cannot be termed as the ‘aggrieved person’.
4. For the purposes of deciding the preliminary objection, I think it proper to refer to the contents of Article 300 of the Constitution of India, which are as under:
“300. Suits and proceedings– (1) The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by the Act of the Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India, and the corresponding provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.
(2) If at the commencement of this Constitution-
(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion in those proceedings; and
(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Province or an Indian State is a party, the corresponding State shall be deemed to be
substituted for the province or the Indian State in those proceedings.”
From a perusal of the language used in Article 300 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that it is only the State which can sue or can be sued in relation to the affairs of the State. The question whether the vehicle should be registered or not or should be registered at which place is in our opinion definitely a matter relating to the affairs/ functions of the State. The Regional Transport Officer (appellate authority) and the District Transport Officer (Registering authority) are only the functionaries of the State and by no stretch of imagination they can be clothed with any legal right to initiate proceedings in a court regarding the affairs/functions of the State in their capacity as D. T. O. (Registering Authority) and R.T.O. (Appellate Authority). The prayer made in the appeal is also significant, which indicates that the appellants have invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court like individuals as would be evident from the language of the prayer, which is as under:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the order dated 1-6-1994 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Madan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2117/94 be quashed and set aside and orders dated 30-7-1993 and 4-4-1994 may kindly be restored or any other order beneficial or in favour of the appellants may kindly be passed.”
From the facts stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner regarding maintinability of the special appeal appears to be tenable and the special appeal can be dismissed on this ground alone, but however, in view of the fact that the controversy involved in the instant case will affect large number of vehicle owners, we think it proper to test the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge on facts and law as well.
5. We have heard Mr. Praveen Balvada, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioner. From a perusal of the order of the learned single
Judge, it appears that in the instant case, mainly the interpretation of Sections 47 and 48 of the Act is involved. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the case and the view taken by the learned single Judge, we think it proper to refer to the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Act in extenso:
“47. Assignment of new registration mark on removal to another State. — (1) When a motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State, for a period exceeding twelve months, the owner of the vehicle shall, within such period and in such form containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Central Government, apply to the registering authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark and shall present the certificate of registration to that registering authority:
Provided that an application under this sub-section shall be accompanied-
(i) by the no objection certificate obtained under Section 48, or
(ii) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained by-
(a) receipt obtained under Sub-section (2) of Section 48; or
(b) the postal acknowledgment received by the owner of the vehicle if he has sent an application in this beh(sic) by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48,
together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted:
Provided further that, in a case where a motor vehicle is held under a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement, an application under this sub-section shall be accompanied by a no objection certificate from the person with whom such agreement has been entered into, and the provision of Section 51, so far as may be, regarding obtaining of such certificate from the person with whom such agreement has been entered into, shall apply.
(2) The registering authority, to which application is made under Sub-section (1) shall after making such verification, as it thinks fit, of the returns, if any, received under Section 62, assign the vehicle a registration mark as specified in Sub-section (6) of Section 41 to be displayed and shown thereafter on the vehicle and shall enter the mark upon the certificate of registration before returning it to the applicant and shall, in communication with registering authority by whom the vehicle was previously registered, arrange for the transfer of the registration of the vehicle from the records of that registering authority to its own records.
(3) Where a motor vehicle is held under a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement, the registering authority shall after assigning the vehicle a registration mark under Sub-section (2), inform the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement (by sending to such person a notice by registered post acknowledgment due at the address of such person entered in the certificate of registration the fact of assignment of the said registration mark).
(4) A State Government may make rules under Section 65 requiring the owner of a moter vehicle not registered within the State, which is brought into or is for the time being in the State, to furnish to the prescribed authority in the State such information with respect to the motor vehicle and its registration as may be prescribed.
(5) If the owner fails to make an application under Sub-section (1) within the period prescribed, the registering authority may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under Sub-section (7):
Provided that action under Section 177 shall be taken against the owner where the owner fails to pay the said amount.
(6) Where the owner has paid the amount under Sub-section (5), no action shall be taken against him under Section 177.
(7) For the purposes of Sub-section (5), the State Government may prescribe different amounts having regard to the period of delay on the part of the owner in making an application under Sub-section (1).
“48. No Objection Certificate: —
(1) The owner of a motor vehicle when applying for the assignment of a new registration mark under Sub-section (1) of Section 47 or where the transfer of a motor vehicle is to be effected in a State other than the State of its registration, the transferor of such vehicle when reporting the transfer under Sub-section (1) of Section 50 shall make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority by which the vehicle was registered for the issue of a certificate (hereinafter in this section referred to as the no objection certificate), to the effect that the registering authority has no objection for assigning a new registration mark to the vehicle or, as the case may be, for entering the particulars of the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration.
(2) The registering authority shall, on receipt of an application under Sub-section (1) issue a receipt in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) On receipt of an application under Sub-section (1), the registering authority may, after making such inquiry and requiring the applicant to comply with such directions as it deems fit and within thirty days of the receipt thereof, by order in writing, communicate to the applicant that it has granted or refuse to grant the no objection certificate:
Provided that a registering authority shall not refuse to grant the no objection certificate unless it has recorded in writing the reasons for doing so and a copy of the same has been communicated to the applicant.
(4) Where within a period of thirty days referred to in Sub-section (3), the registering authority does not refuse to grant the no
objection certificate or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the registering authority shall be deemed to have granted the no objection certificate.
(5) Before granting or refusing to grant the no objection certificate, the registering authority shall obtain a report in writing from the police that no case relating to the theft of the motor vehicle concerned has been reported or is pending, verify whether all the amounts due to the. Government including road tax in respect of that motor vehicle have been paid and take into account such other factors as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”
Section 47, Sub-clause (1) provides that if a motor vehicle which is registered in one State has been brought and kept in other State for a period exceeding twelve months, the owner of the vehicle has to apply to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is kept for assignment of a new registration mark. It further provides that such application has to be accompanied by No Objection Certificate obtained under Section 48 or where no such certificate has been obtained, the receipt obtained under Sub-section (2) of Section 48 or the postal acknowledgment receipt received by the owner of the vehicle if he has sent an application in this behalf etc. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 enjoins duty upon the registering authority to assign vehicle registration mark after due verification. Sub-section (5) of Section 47 provides that in case the owner fails to make an application under Sub-section (1) within the period prescribed, the registering authority may require the owner to pay, in lieu of any action that may be taken against him under Section 177, such amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed under Sub-section (7). For the material on record this fact cannot be contested by the appellants that the vehicle had been kept by the respondent for more than 12 months in the State of Rajasthan i.e. Jaipur. The respondent was also residing at B-34 Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, which is within the teritorrial jurisdiction of District Transport Officer (Registering Authority),
Jaipur. The application of the respondent for registration was rejected firstly on the ground that the respondent was a resident of District Jalore and as such the application for registration should have been moved before the District Transport Officer, Jalore, who was the competent authority to register the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that since the respondent was a resident of District Jalore, the learned single Judge committed grave error in directing the respondents to register the vehicle of the petitioner as he was not a resident of Jaipur. The said argument is wholly fallicious and is contrary to the material on record. It is significant to mention that even the address of the respondent in the present appeal has been mentioned as B-34, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Apart from this, in a letter dated 9-7-1993, a copy of which has been filed as Annex-ure P/ 3, which was sent to the respondent by the District Transport Officer, the District Transport Officer himself has mentioned the address of the respondent as “Pradeep Kumar Jain s/o Shri Sukhraj B-34, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. In view of the said letter, in our opinion, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to urge that the respondent was not residing at Jaipur and in our opinion the order passed by the learned single Judge is perfectly justified and is not contrary to the conditions laid down in Section 47 of the Act. In this regard, we would also like to point out the fact that in Section 47 the Parliament has used the words “within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is”. The words “then is” are indicative of the fact that the owner of the vehicle can apply to the registering authority of the place, in whose jurisdiction the vehicle is kept. In the instant case, the respondent was residing at Jaipur and at the same time, the vehicle was also being kept at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that the respondent was not a permanent resident of Jaipur and since he was temporarily residing in Jaipur, he could not have moved an application for registration before the District Transport Officer, Jaipur. We have no hesitation in saying that the said contention is
wholly unten(sic). The owner of the vehicle may be a permanent resident of a particular place, but at the same time he can carry on his business at another place. There is no bar under any law that a owner of vehicle who is a permanent resident oi a particular place, cannot ply his vehicle within the jurisdiction of different District Transport Officer and cannot keep his vehicle for business purposes. In our opinion, if the argument of the appellants is accepted that the intention of the Parliament is that the application for registration can be entertained by the District Transport Officer within whose jurisdiction the vehicle owner is permanently living, it will create serious problems for the vehicle owners who want to carry on their business at the places other than the places of their permanent residents. We are of the considered opinion that such could never have been the intention of the Parliament while enacting law, inasmuch as such condition would be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Judging the order passed by the learned single Judge from this angle, we hold that the order of the learned single Judge cannot be assailed on this ground.
6. The other limb of argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order of the learned single Judge is contrary to the mandatory requirement of Section 48 of the Act as the respondent failed to produce no objection certificate from the District Transport Officer, Palampur (Gujarat). On the aforesaid question, the learned single Judge has held as under:
“He had complied with all the procedural formalities. Notwithstanding the same, under Sub-section (4) of Section 48, which clearly stipulates that where within a period of thirty days referred to in Sub-section (3) the registering authority does not refuse to grant the no objection certificate or does not communicate the refusal to the applicant, the registering authority shall be deemed to have granted no objection certificate.”
The said finding recorded by the learned single Judge is clearly borne out from the facts
and material on record. Annexure-P/1 is a letter dated 2-7-1993 alleged to have been sent to the District Transport Officer, Jaipur in which the respondent has stated that he sent an application to the District Transport Officer, Palampur on 29-12-1992, which was received by them on 31-12-1992. It was further stated that the tax had been paid by the respondent in the State of Gujarat till 31-12-1992. It was further stated that though six months have passed but neither N.O.C. was issued nor any objection for non-issuance of the same was communicated to the respondent. It was further alleged that since more than 30 days have elapsed from the date of reciept of the said application, the N.O.C. shall be deemed to have been issued. On the basis of these materials, we reiterate that the finding of the learned single Judge is wholly justified on this ground as well.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly urged that in view of the language used in Section 48, if the transfer of the motor vehicle is to be effected in the State other than the State of its registration, the transferor of such vehicle shall make an application to the registering authority for issuance of No Objection Certificate. He contended that in the instant case, the application for grant of N.O.C. was moved by the transferee i.e. the respondent and not by the transferor and as such even after expiry of 30 days of the application made by the transferee i.e. the respondent, in the instant case the registering authority shall not be deemed to have granted N.O.C. In our opinion, the assignment of new registration mark being a procedural provision, it is only regulatory in character and the power vested in the registering authority for registration or for assignment of new mark cannot be used as a weapon to take away the citizens’ fundamental right to conduct his business by plying the vehcile. The very purpose of registration and assignment of new number appears to be a check for the purposes of collecting tax and also to ascertain that the vehicle is not stolen. Moreover, if the respondent-transferee instead of transferor had moved an application for grant of N.O.C., the District Transport Officer should have intimated or asked the respondent-transferee to produce N.O.C. or should have given at least an opportunity to the transferee to ask the transferor himself to obtain N.O.C. from the Registering Authority, Palampur on the application moved by the transferor. But in our opinion, the District Transport Officer (Registering Authority) acted arbitrarily and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice in rejecting the application for registration and for assignment of new mark, moved by the respondent.
8. No other point has been pressed by the counsel for the appellants. We have already expressed our opinion that the special appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone, but however, since the controversy was of vital importance to the vehicle owners of the State, we have scrutinized the order of the learned single Judge by applying the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Act and we find ourselves in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge and the order, in our opinion, deserves to be maintained.
9. Before parting with the case, we are constrained in expressing our displeasure about the conduct of the appellants in preferring the special appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. In our opinion, the appeal could have been filed only by the State of Rajasthan, if the State Government Was aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge. The undue interest taken by the appellants i.e. the Appellate Authority and the Registering Authority, in preferring the special appeal also speaks volumes about the nature of objectivity with which the appellants decided the matter. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for information and necessary action.
10. In the result, the special appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.