MAHABIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order purported to have been passed on 24.12.2008 cancelling the registration of the vehicle for false particulars alleged to have been given by the petitioner in his application for issue of registration certificate for a new vehicle purchased. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the alleged cancellation of the registration certificate only when the vehicle was seized on 09.01.2009 for alleged traffic violation for carrying more passengers than authorized while using it as a transport vehicle. It was only in the order issued on 27.01.2009 that reference to cancellation of permit was said to have been made on 24.12.2008. The vehicle is said to be in the custody of the State and the petitioner appears to have been allowed to drive the vehicle on behalf of the State.

(2.) The order issued on 24.12.2008 contains a fundamental flaw in referring to a show cause notice as alleged to have been given to the petitioner before cancellation of registration certificate. The order reads that the show cause notice was attempted to be served on the petitioner but it was returned as refused on 29.12.2008. I asked the State counsel to produce the file and I find that a notice issued to show cause against cancellation was attempted to be sent through registered post which bears postal endorsement of 6 or 7 beats before a return was made on 29.12.2008. If the postal return was only on 29.12.2008, an order could not have been passed even earlier on 24.12.2008 making reference to the alleged refusal of the petitioner to receive a show cause notice. Evidently, the order purported to have been passed on 24.12.2008 was prepared subsequently, that is, after the attempted action of the State to serve the show cause notice. The order would require to be quashed for the violation of principles of natural justice in not serving the show cause notice and purporting to cancel the certificate of registration.

(3.) The subsequent order of seizure of the vehicle for violation of terms of permit is sourced to the power under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said provision makes possible the seizure of the vehicle where a vehicle is run in contravention of the provisions of Sections 3, 4 or 39 or plying a vehicle without permit as required under Section 66(1). Section 3 contains the licence requirements and Section 4 contains a reference to the age limit of the driver. Section 39 makes reference to necessity for registration and it is nobody's case that the vehicle was not registered. It was a case of registration being cancelled subsequently. I have already held that cancellation of licence was done in violation of the principles of natural justice and observed earlier that such cancellation was invalid in law. The violation of permit under Section 66(1) would, in this case, mean carrying passengers more than the sanctioned authorized number. It is possible to effect a seizure on such a basis, but the seizure effected has stood far too long to be sustained any longer. I quash the order of seizure as of now and direct the release of the vehicle to the petitioner.