RANJIT MALHOTRA Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus to be issued to the respondents to register vehicle described as Ambassador Grand Harit-C-1800 (BSIII), 2009 Model in his name, as the respondents have failed to do so despite various representations having being made in that regard.

(2.) The petitioner herein purchased a vehicle described as Ambassador Grand Harit-C-1800 (BSIII), 2009 Model (henceforth called 'the vehicle in question') from a counsellor of the European Union posted at Delhi on 23.07.2019 which, vehicle was delivered to him at Chandigarh on 10.08.2019. The petitioner obtained a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Registering Authorities at Delhi and also completed all the formalities before purchasing the vehicle in question. The reason for purchasing the vehicle from Delhi was the art work done on the body of the car by a renowned Mexican artist Senkoe. The petitioner thereafter applied to the authority at Chandigarh for registering the vehicle along with all necessary documents. Since, the registration was not sanctioned, the petitioner represented to the authorities but to no avail, necessitating the filing of the instant writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate, would urge that there is no plausible reason for the respondents to decline the registration of the vehicle, since all documents are in order. It is argued that the NOC as given by the RTO Delhi has also been duly verified. It is urged that without due transfer of the car from Delhi to Chandigarh and registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner, the said vehicle cannot be insured nor driven on the road and will lose its utility. It is argued that the only explanation for denial of registration is that the respondents have formed an opinion that the colour of the car has been changed from 'White' to 'Multicolour'.