The Kerala High Court has held that a person residing in a particular State or having a business place in it can get the motor vehicle registered at any registration authority within the State.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a man seeking completion of the registration process of his vehicle under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

The single-bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed, "Therefore, considering the language implied in Section 40 of the MV Act and advisory issued by the Central Government, it is evident that the jurisdiction is in respect of the State and not in respect of the registering authority for registering the motor vehicle. A person residing in a State or have place of business in a particular State can get the motor vehicle registered by any of the registering authorities of that State."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Shinto Thomas, Advocate Abhirami S., Advocate Gautam Krishna E.J. and Advocate Megha Biju while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Mini Gopinath and Advocate Krishna T.C.

The Petitioner on purchase of the said vehicle was issued with a temporary registration certificate by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO). Since he wanted to have a fancy number, he participated in the online auction process for fancy numbers, which was conducted through the Parivahan online portal under the aegis of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and successfully secured the same after duly making the requisite payment.

Thereafter, he approached the RTO Office to register the vehicle. However, he was directed to approach another RTO Office for he is not residing in the jurisdiction of the original one nor does he have a place of business in that jurisdiction.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the amendment brought in by way of Section 40 of the MV Act with effect from 01.09.2019, every owner of the motor vehicle is entitled to have the registration of his motor vehicle within the State of his residence from any registering authority. He, therefore, submitted that the insistence by one RTO in State to get the vehicle registered from another RTO for reason of petitioner not having the jurisdiction is against the amended provisions of Section 40 of MV Act. He further placed reliance on the advisory issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.

Government Pleader however submitted that the amended provision of Section 40 of MV Act also would indicate that the residence or the place of residence where the vehicle is normally kept has to be within the jurisdiction of the registering authority.

The Court concluded that by language implied in Section 40 of the MV Act and advisory issued by the Central Government, it is evident that the jurisdiction is in respect of the State and not in respect of the registering authority for registering the motor vehicle.

"Therefore, the insistence by the 3rd respondent that since the petitioner does not have a residence or place of business within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent is contrary to the express provision of Section 40 of the MV Act and is unsustainable in law," the court observed.

The petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Sabeer A vs. State of Kerala (2024:KER:83404)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Shinto Thomas, Advocate Abhirami S., Advocate Gautam Krishna E.J. and Advocate Megha Biju

Respondent- Advocate Mini Gopinath and Advocate Krishna T.C.

Click here to read/ download the judgement:



Kerala High CourtMotor Vehicles ActRegistrationJustice Dinesh Kumar Singh

Sheetal Joon