SATYA NARAYAN DAS Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the vehicle checking report dated 26-3-93 (Annexure 1) and for declaring R. 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') as ultra vires the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also prayed for return of the documents seized by the authorities.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner, an engineer serving under KALOD at Angul, owns a fiat car registered in the year 1972 bearing registration No. CRX 6100. The petitioner has been regularly paying tax for the said car to the registering authority, Dhenkanal, opposite party No. 2, and has also paid the tax for the period 1993-94. For all those years, the petitioner was never intimated by any authority that the certificate of registration of the petitioner is valid for a period of 15 years and has to be renewed thereafter. On 26-6-93 when the petitioner was travelling in the said car from Angul to Bhubaneswar to attend a marriage function, his car was stopped by the flying squad of the State Transport Authority and he was served with a vehicle checking report (Annexure 1) for alleged offence under S. 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and a sum of Rs. 2,000 / was demanded from the petitioner for compounding the said offence. When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,000 /-, the flying squad seized the certificate of registration and certificate of Insurance of the vehicle and directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner, Transport (Enforcement), opposite party No. 3, on 28-6-93. The petitioner appeared before the opposite party No. 3 on 28-6-93 and was asked to pay a minimum fine of Rs. 1,000 /- for the purpose of compounding the offence under S. 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner, however, expressed his inability to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,000 / - for compounding the offence and has filed the present writ application. One of the maximum amount that can be demanded by the authorities for the default on the part of the petitioner for not applying for renewal of the certificate for registration of his vehicle is Rs. 100/-.

(3.) Mr. G. P. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner is at best guilty of not filing an application for renewal of the registration certificates of his vehicle as required under sub-section (8) of section 41 of the Act and is, therefore, liable for a maximum amount of Rs. 100 /- under sub-section (11) of S. 41 of the Act. Mr. Mohanty further submits that the petitioner is not liable under S. 192 of the Act for contravention of S. 39 and in the event it is held on the basis of what has been provided under sub-rule (2) of R. 52 of the Rules that the petitioner is liable for the offence under S. 192 of the Act, then the said sub-rule (3) of R. 52 is ultra vires the provisions contained in S. 41 of the Act.