Saseendran vs Joint Regional Transport Officer (RTO)

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Motor Vehicles Department is justified in blacklisting a tanker lorry consequent upon the dispute between the registered owner and the appellant herein.

The learned Government Pleader submits by virtue of the provisions under Rule 139 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the authority is competent to black list any vehicle. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 139, which reads thus:

“139. Production of licence and certificate of registration.—The driver or conductor of a motor vehicle shall produce certificate of registration, insurance, fitness and permit, the driving licence and any other relevant documents on demand by any police officer in uniform or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf, and if any or all of the documents are not in his possession, he shall produce in person an extract or extracts of the documents duly attested by any police officer or by any other officer or send it to the officer who demanded the documents by registered post within 15 days from the date of demand.”

The learned Single Judge noted that there exists a dispute between the parties and that the blacklist is legal.

It is to be noted that the public authority is not competent to encourage any private dispute between the parties by invoking the statutory provisions. If there is any private dispute existing between the parties, they are free to move the competent court for redressal of their private dispute. In the colour of a private dispute, the statutory provisions cannot be invoked to blacklist a vehicle. No doubt, if any order is passed by the civil court or competent authority, that order will have to be honoured by the public authority.

It is to be noted that under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner is defined as follows:

“owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.

An owner includes a person in possession of the vehicle. Therefore, the owner need not be a registered owner. If the competent authority is satisfied that the person seeking a fitness certificate is the owner, then the public authority is acting in accordance with law. We make it clear that this Court is not clothing any right for the appellant to get a fitness certificate. It is for the public authority to decide whether based on the materials produced, the petitioner can be treated as an owner for obtaining a fitness certificate. We are only interfering with the action of the public authority in blacklisting the vehicle because of the private dispute. According to us, it cannot be done unless the parties obtain an order from the competent court in regard to the subject of the dispute. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. There shall be an order to lift the blacklisting of the vehicle in question. However, we make it clear that this will be subject to any civil dispute between the parties and subject to any order to be passed by the competent civil court.

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.