A person living or running a business in a state can register a motor vehicle with any of the registration authorities in that state, according to the Kerala High Court.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a person living in a specific State or having a business there can register their vehicle at any registration authority within that State. This decision came from a Writ Petition filed by a man who wanted to complete the registration of his vehicle under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that the wording in Section 40 and the advisory from the Central Government show that the jurisdiction applies to the State itself, not just to the specific registering authority. Thus, anyone residing or doing business in a State can register their vehicle with any authority in that State.
The petitioner received a temporary registration certificate from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) after buying the vehicle. He wanted a special number and took part in an online auction for fancy numbers through the Parivahan portal, run by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, and won after paying the required fee. When he went to the RTO Office to register his vehicle, he was told to go to a different RTO Office because he did not live or have a business in that jurisdiction.
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that due to the changes made by Section 40 of the MV Act effective from 01.09.2019, every motor vehicle owner can register their vehicle in the State where they live, regardless of the registering authority. He claimed that requiring the petitioner to register the vehicle with a different RTO because of jurisdiction issues contradicts the updated Section 40 of the MV Act. He also referenced an advisory from the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. In response, the Government Pleader stated that the amended Section 40 suggests that the vehicle must be kept at a residence within the jurisdiction of the registering authority.
The Court determined that the wording in Section 40 of the MV Act and the advisory from the Central Government clearly indicate that jurisdiction pertains to the State, not the specific registering authority for vehicle registration. The Court noted, “Thus, the requirement from the 3rd respondent that the petitioner must have a residence or business within the 3rd respondent’s jurisdiction contradicts Section 40 of the MV Act and is not legally valid.” Consequently, the petition was granted.
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.
