DIGVIJAYSINH BHAVANSINH GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Namrata Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.

(2.) The present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the writ applicant seeking following reliefs :-

(3.) It was submitted by Ms. Namrata Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the writ applicant that the writ applicant is the owner of the vehicle being Truck No. GJ-03-BV-2607. The respondent authority was declined to renew the registration of vehicle by the impugned communication dtd. 25/1/2019. It appears that the notice came to be issued by the respondent authority on 31/12/2018, which is duly taken on record as produced by Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State. It appears that the writ applicant did not appear before the respondent authority, consequently, the impugned communication came to be communicated to the writ applicant by the respondent authority on 25/1/2019, which is duly produced at page 16 of the writ application. It appears that the non registration is with regard to the non-payment of penalty as imposed by the respondent authority and the said registration is denied in view of the fact that the writ applicant herein is not in possession of a valid lease. It is clarified that no proceedings would lie under the Motor Vehicles Act . It is not even the case of the writ applicant that the proceedings are at-large pending before the RTO.