SADANANDAN Vs. R T O KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reliefs prayed for in the O.P. read:

(2.) From the discussion above, it is clear that once the transferor and transferee of a vehicle satisfy the requirements prescribed under the above provisions, the Registering Authority is bound to enter the fact of the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration. It is no doubt true that the word 'may' employed in sub-s.(6) may suggest that it is not mandatory that the Registering Authority shall cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration even if the transferor and transferee have, in compliance with the provisions contained in sub-s.(1) of S.50, reported the fact of transfer of ownership to him within the period stipulated under the said sub-section. But the word 'may' here, to my mind is mandatory, for, S.50 is dealing with property rights of citizens. To put it differently, unless the word 'may' in sub-s.(6) of S.50 is read as 'must' the rights of citizens to own property which ownership takes in its fold the right to transfer such property, would be taken away. This shall not happen because to own property is a constitutional right.

(3.) The Registering Authority while considering the joint application of the transferor and the transferee to have the fact of ownership recorded in the registration certificate is discharging a quasi judicial function is beyond challenge. If that be so, he shall not discharge that function under directions from higher/superior authorities. From the report of the Registering Authority, it is clear that he passed the order refusing to record the fact of transfer of ownership under directions from higher authorities. The power vested in the Registering Authority under S.50 of the 1988 Act has been conferred on him for the public reasons involving the property rights of citizens doing motor transport business. An enabling power of this kind is coupled with a duty which shall not be shirked or shelved nor shall it be evaded; and if such evasion or shirking is noticed, the performance of the same will be compelled under Art.226 of the Constitution. Again the exercise of this authority shall not be based on directions issued by higher authorities. If on enquiry, it is found that this power is fettered by directions of higher authorities, then also the order passed under such directions is liable to be quashed under Art.226 of the Constitution. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr, of Police v. Gordhandas ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ).