MAHENDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a tourist bus operator and doing the business of Transportation of Tourists in India by his own tourist buses. Petitioner owned tourist vehicle bearing No. UP -95 T 5127 which was initially registered with Regional Transport Officer (RTO) Mahoba (U.P.) and at present it is duly registered with RTO, Gwalior after NOC being issued from RTO, Mahoba. As submitted, petitioner's vehicle was having valid documents at the relevant time of checking/seizure of vehicle on 01- 05-2024 under the jurisdiction of District Transport Officer and Registration Officer Jaipur -II and registration of vehicle was kept under suspension by DTO Jaipur exercising the power under Sec. 53(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act"). Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) According to senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, impugned seizure of vehicle and suspension of registration is contrary to the provisions of Ss. 130 and 207 of the MV Act. It is further submitted that Chapter -IV of the MV Act as well as Chapter -IV of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1994") provides provision for registration of vehicle, suspension of registration certificate, cancellation of registration certificate as well as issuance of certificate of fitness. By virtue of provisions of Sec. 65(2)(b) and (d) of the MV Act, State Government is empowered to prescribe any registering authority or other prescribed authority in the State for the purpose of carrying out the effect of the provisions of Chapter -IV of the MV Act including registration of motor vehicle and its suspension. Therefore, it covers the provision as contained in Ss. 40, 53, 55 and 56 respectively of the MV Act. Therefore, RTO/DTO/ARTO of Madhya Pradesh under rule 41 of the Rules of 1994 are registering authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of carrying out effect of the provisions. Since vehicle was registered in Madhya Pradesh, therefore, DTO/RTO Jaipur (Rajasthan) had no authority to interfere in the matter by way of suspension of registration. DTO Jaipur -II (Rajasthan) is empowered to function as registration authority within the district Jaipur and he cannot operate in respect of vehicles which are being registered in Madhya Pradesh.