NELSON Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner purchased a motorcar KLE-97 from one T. K. Surendran, Mattancherry, Cochin on 10-10-1969. While the vehicle was under the ownership of Shri. Surendran it had been stopped and checked by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Quilon on 6-6-1969 at 4.35 P. M. at Chavara when it was found that it was conveying for hire without permit one Shri. Kunji Bai and his family consisting of six persons. A charge memo dated 26-9-1970 was issued to the petitioner by the Registering Authority (Regional Transport Officer), Ernakulam 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days why the registration certificate of the car should not be suspended under S.33(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of unauthorised user of the vehicle for carrying passengers on hire without a permit. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the charge memo on 2-11-1970 and he claims to have sent an explanation, of which Ext. B1 is alleged to be a copy, but the said paper does not appear to have been received in the office of the Ist respondent. The 1st respondent therefore proceeded to dispose of the matter ex parte and passed the order Ext. P2 dated 15th October, 1971 suspending the registration certificate of the car for a period of four months from 20-11-1971 and the petitioner was directed by the said order to surrender the registration certificate of the vehicle forthwith to the office of the 1st respondent. Against the said order passed by the 1st respondent the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Ernakulam (2nd respondent). The main contention put forward by the petitioner in the appeal was that at the time of the purchase of the vehicle from the previous owner the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the vehicle had been involved in the commission of an offence under S.33(1)(b) of the Act and since the registration in respect of the vehicle had been transferred in the petitioner's favour by the Regional Transport Officer without any objection it was not thereafter open to the 1st respondent to pursue any action against the new owner for suspending the registration of the vehicle. The said contention was rejected by the 2nd respondent and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by him as per the order Ext. P3 dated 21-6-1972. The petitioner has brought this writ petition seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P3.

(2.) It was contended before us by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that S.33(1)(b) of the Act contemplates action being taken thereunder only against the person who was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time when the vehicle was used for hire or reward without a valid permit and that if the ownership of the vehicle has changed hands subsequent to the commission of the said offence a bona fide transferee who has purchased the vehicle for value without any notice of the fact of commission of such offence is not liable to be proceeded against under the said provision. In support of the said contention counsel for the petitioner relied very strongly on the following observations of Vaidialingam, J. in Haji M. Abdulla v. Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode, 1964 KLT 112 :

(3.) It is contended by the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents that under S.33(1)(b) of the Act the registration certificate of a vehicle is liable to be suspended on its being found by the concerned statutory authority that the vehicle has been used for hire or reward without a valid permit and this liability will not be in any way affected if the ownership of the vehicle is subsequently transferred to another person and that the bona fides of the purchaser or the lack of knowledge on his part about the antecedent wrongful use of the vehicle for hire or reward is therefore not of any relevance in a proceeding under S.33(1)(b). On this basis it is submitted by the Government Pleader that the above observations in Haji M Abdulla v. Regional Transport Officer. Kozhikode, 1964 KLT 112, cannot be regarded as laying down correct law. We find that there is force in this contention.