Vehicle registered in one State need not be re-registered: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

If a vehicle is once registered in any State in India, it shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India unless is kept in another State, for a period exceeding twelve months, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled (Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Irshad Hussain Munshi v. Government of JK and Ors)..However, the Court clarified that when a motor vehicle registered in one State, has been kept in another State for a period of exceeding 12 months, the owner should apply to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is, for the assignment of a new registration mark. .A Bench of Justices Ali Mohammad Magrey and Vinod Chatterji Koul, therefore, quashed a circular issued by Regional Transport Officer (RTO) mandating re-registration of vehicles purchased from outside the Union Territory of J&K. ."If the vehicle once registered in any State in India, it shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India, but when the Motor Vehicle registered in one State, has been kept in another State for a period of exceeding 12 months, the owner shall apply to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is for the assignment of new registration mark," the Court held. This is as provided under Sections 46 and 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court added. .The Court has hearing a plea challenging a circular dated March 27, 2021 issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Kashmir in this regard.The circular said that it will be compulsory for owners who have purchased their vehicles bearing registration mark from outside the UT to apply for a new registration mark as per the provisions of Section 47/50 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 within a period of 15 days.The same was challenged by two vehicle owners, Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and Irshad Hussain Munshi who though residents of J&K, had purchased vehicles bearing Delhi registration. Petitioners while in Srinagar with their vehicles, were stated to have bee harassed by the Police/Transport Department, merely on the ground of having the Delhi registration number on the vehicles and on ascertaining the reasons they were informed about the circular. This led to the challenge before the High Court. .It was submitted that the perusal of Section 47 would reveal that the power/jurisdiction for assigning a new registration mark on a vehicle is within the power/jurisdiction of the Central government. In absence of the delegation of the powers otherwise vesting with the Central government, the RTO has no authority to issue a circular under challenge. On the merits, the petitioner adverted to Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that for the implementation of Section 47 and for the assigning of a new Registration Mark, the vehicle removed from one State to other must have been kept in the state for a continuous period of more than 12 months."In the instant case, the circular was neither in accordance with the scheme envisaged in Section 47 of the Act nor was clear with respect to the implementation of the said Section over a particular class of vehicles," it was submitted. .It was also pointed out that the circular would have the effect of subjecting a person to double taxation since the owner would have already paid tax when registering the vehicle for the first time. .The Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Kashmir defended the decision before the High Court stating that it was taken in a meeting convened by the Secretary to Government, Transport Department for ensuring screening of the vehicles which bear the non-local registration..The Advocate General appearing for resppndents also contended that circular is only aimed at ensuring of assigning of new registration mark to the vehicles, which are bearing registration mark of other states, but are plying in the Union Territory of J&K, as mandated by Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He placed reliance on various provisions of Motor Vehicles Act to demonstrate that the transport authorities are within the jurisdiction/ power to screen, scrutinize and verify the genuineness and validity of the documents of the vehicle for ensuring implementation of provisions of scheme of law..The bench of Justices Ali Mohammad Magrey and Vinod Chatterji Koul on Thursday quashed circular issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Kashmir (RTO) whereby the vehicle owners, who have purchased their vehicles from outside Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory bearing outside registration mark, were asked to apply for a new registration mark as per the provisions of Sections 47 and 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 within 15 days failing which it warned of action..The Court after examining the provisions of the Act held tha once registered in any State in India, it shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India. Only when a motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State, for a period exceeding twelve 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.Further, a lifetime tax that is levied at the point of registration of a vehicle in terms of Section 3 read with Part A5 of the schedule to the Act, cannot be levied on a vehicle registered outside the Union Territory of JK, which remains in the Union Territory of J&K for a period exceeding twelve months, the Court said. .The Court also noted that the while the law allows authorities to seek new registration mark for vehicles from outside the State which are kept in the State for more than 12 months, the same would depend on the declaration of the vehicle owner. However, if the owner does not make such declaration, then the mechanism to deal with such eventuality is not provided under the law. .In the present case, however, both the petitioners have admitted entry of vehicles in the Union Territory of J&K, but have denied the vehicles remaining in Jammu and Kashmir exceeding 12 months, the Court noted. .Based on the above, the Court concluded that the circular issued by RTO was unnecessary and without jurisdiction. ."The impugned circular issued by the Regional Transport officer, Kashmir (RTO) is unnecessary, as being without authority to the extent of warning the genuine owners of the vehicles having outside registration and making entry in the Union Teritory of J&K, for their assignment of new registration mark compulsory is contrary to Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, therefore, we are inclined to quash the said impugned circular," the Court ordered. But while doing so we do not by any stretch of imagination take away the powers of the Central Government/Government of Jammu and Kashmir to deal with the eventuality of screening, scrutinizing, verifying the validity/genuineness of documents of a vehicle, having outside registration and making entry in the Union Territory of J&K for whatever purpose be as a tourist, businessman or employee etc, the Court added. .The court made it clear that "mere quashment of the impugned circular does not take away the authority of the respondents from dealing with the cases of those vehicle owners, who have got their vehicles registered outside the Union Territory of JK, but after making entry in the Union Territory of JK and remained for a period exceeding 12 months, requires assignment of new registration mark in tune with the application of Section 47."But for that some mechanism as agreed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport Department is to be placed in vogue with due adherence to compliance with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the order said. .Thus, the Court concluded that if a vehicle is once registered in any State in India, it shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India, but when the motor vehicle registered in one State, has been kept in another State for a period of exceeding 12 months, the owner shall apply to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the vehicle is for the assignment of new registration mark. It, however, also added that a life time tax that is levied at the point of registration of a vehicle in terms of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be levied on a vehicle registered, merely on a presumption that a vehicle registered outside Union Territory of J&K, has remained in the Union Territory of J&K for a period exceeding 12 months..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Faisal Qadri along with advocates Altaf Mehraj, Fasil Javid and Mukhtar Ahmad while Advocate General DC Raina along with Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali and Government Advocate Sajad Ashraf appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]