A K SAROJINI Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. A.K. Sarojini purchased a stage carriage bearing No. K.A.19/952 registered in Karnataka State from Shri. B.K. Vishwanath, a permanent resident of Karnataka and she filed application for reregistration and transfer of ownership of the vehicle before the respondent the Addl. Registering Authority, Kanhangad along with the no objection certificate obtained from the Registering Authority of Karnataka. The respondent rejected the application by Ext. P4 order alleging violation of R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext. P4 order.

(2.) Question for consideration is whether reregistration of the vehicle can be denied invoking R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules when the vehicle had been already registered in another State. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sumathi Dandapani submitted that as the vehicle had already been registered before the Registering Authority at Karnataka, the reregistration of the vehicle cannot be denied by the respondent alleging violation of R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It was further submitted that in view of S.46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the certificate of registration issued in one State shall be effective through out India. S.46 of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that the motor vehicles registered in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in any State shall be effective through out India. S.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act which deals with the assignment of new registration on removal of the vehicle to another State - says that 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. Proviso to S.47(1) says that the application shall be accompanied by the no objection certificate obtained under S.48. In the present case, the no objection certificate obtained from the registering authority also had been filed and as such S.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been complied with.

(3.) The main argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader was that the seating capacity of the vehicle as per R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules was 50 as the wheel base of the vehicle was 519.5 cm i.e. within the range of 506 to 550 cm. and hence there should be the required number of seats provided in the vehicle, and as the required number of seats were not provided in the vehicle, reregistration cannot be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that R.269 would apply only with respect to the fixation of tax on the basis of the seating capacity and it had nothing to do with the actual number of seats provided in the vehicle. A similar question has come up before this Court for consideration in A.P. Ramakrishnan v. Regional Transport Officer, Kannur (1992 ILR (2) 740) wherein this Court held: