Suspending Registration Of Vehicle Without Providing Opportunity For Hearing Is Void Ab Initio, Illegal: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed an appeal by the appellant challenging an order of the Transport Department suspending his vehicle's registration without affording any opportunity for a hearing. It was held that the order was made by the Transport Department in excess of its lawfully prescribed authority and thus was void ab initio illegal.The petition was filed by an individual...
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed an appeal by the appellant challenging an order of the Transport Department suspending his vehicle's registration without affording any opportunity for a hearing.
It was held that the order was made by the Transport Department in excess of its lawfully prescribed authority and thus was void ab initio illegal.
The petition was filed by an individual whose vehicle registration was suspended under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the “Act”) by the Transport Department without offering him any opportunity of hearing as required under Section 53 of the Act. When this order was challenged before the single judge, the court dismissed it on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal which was not exhausted by the petitioner.
The division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar highlighted that in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it was submitted by an affidavit that no notice was issued to him affording an opportunity to present his case before suspending his registration. In response to this, the Transport Department had made only an evasive reply that the notice was issued.
The Court observed that when there was an allegation of not providing any opportunity for hearing, it was not sufficient to state that the notice was issued, but some proof of service of notice in the manner prescribed by law needed to be placed on record. The Court held that no such evidence was placed on record from the side of the respondent department.
Furthermore, the Court opined that the present circumstances were not only a violation of principles of natural justice but, since the requirement of providing notice and opportunity of hearing was prescribed by the statute itself, it was a case of overaction by the authority conferred by law.
“It is not a case where the appellant has raised a grievance regarding non-compliance of principles of natural justice only on the ground that the action of the respondents results in civil consequences. Present is a case where the principles of natural justice have been incorporated in the statutory scheme itself, therefore, it is not merely a case of violation of principles of natural justice, but also an action in excess of authority conferred under the law. Viewed from any angle, the action of respondents is void ab initio and the impugned order passed by the registering authority is liable to be set aside only on that ground,” it was held.
In the background of this analysis, the Court also set aside the order of the single judge and held that the order of the Transport Department was void ab initio.
Accordingly, the decision of the Transport Department to suspend the registration was declared illegal and was revoked.
Title: M/S Ak Jilshan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 184