REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 1-6-1994 allowing the writ petition of the respondent in this appeal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present special appeal lie in narrow compass. The respondent purchased Vehicle No. GRW 2861 from Shri Mohammad Yusuf, resident of Datta, Gujarat. The agreement for the said transaction was executed on 21-2-1992. The respondent is a resident of the State of Rajasthan and the vehicle purchased by him was intended to be kept permanently in the State of Rajasthan. He brought the truck to Jaipur for carrying on transport business and established the office at B-34, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner is alleged to have brought the truck in the State of Rajasthan on 14-10-1992. After bringing the said vehicle, the respondent approached the District Transport Officer, Jhalana-Doonagari, Jaipur and requested him to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the respondent and also requested him to assign new registration mark. He was told that in the absence of no objection certificate, neither the ownership can be transferred nor new Registration Mark can be assigned. It is alleged that along with the application dated 2-7-1993, the respondent submitted to the District Transport Officer, appellant No. 2 the original registration certificate, original Form 'G', tax booklet, the original registry received, issued by the Post Office, the original acknowledgment received from the R-T- O-, Palampur, application filed to the R.T.O., Palampur and Form No. 28 submitted to the R.T.O., Palampur. Again on 5-7-1993, the respondent submitted to the D.T.O. the original Form No. 27, original tax receipt issued at Abu Road Border, the original permit, challan depositing the tax in the Bank and the Photostat copy of the sale deed. The respondent received a letter dated 9-7-1993 from the District Transport Officer directing him to submit the documents. After receipt of the said letter, the respondent submitted an application on 13-7-1993, wherein he requested for transfer of ownership and assignment. The District Transport Officer, however, without providing any opportunity of hearing rejected the application of the respondent by order dated 30/07/1993. The order dated 30/07/1993 passed by the District Transport Officer was received by the respondent on 5-8-1993 and after receipt of copy of the order, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") before the Regional Transport Officer (Appellate Authority), Jaipur Region, Jaipur. It was alleged by the respondent that the appeal was posted for hearing on 23-8-1993 before Shri Ajay Singh Chitora, R.T.O., Jaipur, before whom the respondent appeared on number of occasions, but no order was passed. It appears that in the meantime Shri Ajay Singh Chittora was transferred and Shri Karni Singh Rathore took over as R.T.O. and the appeal was listed before him on 28-8-1993 and 30-8-1993. It has been alleged that the appeal was adjourned on many dates. Ultimately, arguments were heard from both the sides, but the order was reserved and since the respondent did not hear anything from the R.T. O., Jaipur about the fate of his appeal, he was compelled to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction and filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 854/94, which was disposed of by this Court on 25-2-1994 directing the Regional Transport Officer to dispose of the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. After the directions issued by this Court, the appeal of the respondent was dismissed by order dated 4-4-1994. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has raised a very serious preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Special appeal filed by the Regional Transport Officer (Appellate Authority) and the District Transport Officer (Registering Authority). Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the instant appeal has not been filed by the State of Rajasthan, which is mandatory by virtue of the provisions of Art. 300 of the, Constitution of India. He further contended that the Regional Transport Officer and the District Transport Officer are not the independent statutory authorities but are functionaries of the State of Rajasthan and as such the appeal filed on their behalf is not competent. The only authority which could have filed an appeal in respect of the affairs of the State of Rajasthan was the Government of Rajasthan itself. He further contended that the Regional Transport Officer being the appellate authority cannot be termed as the 'aggrieved person'.