Jammu & Kashmir High Court To Decide Validity Of Circular Mandating Re-Registration Of Vehicles Registered Outside J&K

A Division Bench at Srinagar comprising of Justices Vinod Chatterji Koul and Ali Mohammad Magrey was hearing the writ petitions filed by one Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Irshad Hussain Munshi, challenging the authority of the Regional Transport Officer, Kashmir, vis-à-vis issuance of the Circular.

The main argument raised in the petitions was that only Central Government is a competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act to regulate registration of vehicles.

Petitioners' Arguments

Referring to Section 47 of the Act, the Petitioners argued that the scheme of law provides that when a motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State, for a period exceeding 12 months, the owner of the vehicle shall apply to the Registering Authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark.

Such application has to be made within such period and in such form containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

In this backdrop the Petitioners submitted— it is the Central Government which can prescribe the period and form in which the vehicle is required to be registered by the registering authority.

It was further submitted that in the event the impugned circular is given effect, it will frustrate the object of Section 47 which is sought to be implemented by the RTO Kashmir.

State's Response

The State Government on the other hand submitted that in implementation and adherence to the law and in application of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Section 50 and 54, RTO, Kashmir has the authority to seek registration of the vehicle which remained in the Union Territory of J&K for a period exceeding 12 months.

A representative of the RTO, appearing before the Bench virtually, submitted that the decision to notify the impugned circular was taken in a meeting convened by the Secretary to the Government, Transport Department for ensuring screening of the vehicle which bear the non-local registration.

Preliminary Findings

In its order dated April 21, the Division Bench noted that the RTO Officer was not in a position to satisfactorily demonstrate the origin of the impugned circular and his authority to issue it.

On being pointedly asked as to whether any exercise is undertaken by the Transport Department to meet the requirements of Section 46, 47 and 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Officer submitted that he has no records to that effect.

Accordingly, the Bench had asked the Department to file an affidavit, indicating therein as to what necessitated the issuance of impugned circular.

Order Reserved

After a virtually hearing held on April 22, the Division Bench reserved its order in the matter. It is likely to decide two issues:

(i) Maintainability of the petitions

[During the hearing, the Advocate General questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioners with reference to violation of any of their rights qua the action taken by the respondents.]

(ii) Competent authority under Section 47-50 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Transport Department may screen vehicles during pendency of petitions

The Bench has made it clear that pendency of these petitions shall not form any impediment for the Transport Authorities to screen the vehicles with non-local registration mark for checking their veracity vis-a-vis the documents and the bonafide entry of the such vehicles into the territorial limits of J&K Union Territory. Such exercise shall however be undertaken by the officials of the Transport Department only.

Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Bhat v. Government of J&K & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order [April 21]

Click Here To Download Order [April 22]