LAW Courses
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


  • A circular was released by Regional Transport Office in Jammu and Kashmir on 27 March 2021, which mentioned that every vehicle in the state that is registered in another state has to be re-registered itself in J&K as per the provisions of Section 47 and Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, within 15 days otherwise action will be taken. This notice was quashed by the J&K High Court on 29 April 2021 in a common order passed in two petitions.

Background of the Case

  • A common order is passed in two petitions.
  • The petitioners in both the petitions were residents of the Union Territory-Jammu & Kashmir.
  • They claimed to be the owners of the vehicles which are registered in Delhi.
  • They submitted that they were harassed by the Police/Transport department, merely because they had the Delhi Registration numbers and on ascertaining they were informed about the impugned circular.
  • Hence, being aggrieved they challenged the circular.

Main Arguments presented by the Petitioners

  • The petitioner submitted that he travels to Delhi and various places frequently and hence the vehicle doesn't stay in the UT for 12 months which is a condition mentioned under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for a vehicle to be re-registered in a place and therefore the circular is not clear with respect to the implementation of said section over a particular class of a vehicle and is liable to be quashed.
  • The Petitioner also submitted that the circular is issued without any jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed as the jurisdiction for assigning a new registration mark is with the central government within the ambit of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the Court say

  • The Bench was comprised of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey.
  • The Honorable Court has passed a common order for two similar petitions- WP(C) No. 669/2021 and 777/2021.
  • The Court through the writ of Certiorari quashed the impugned order.
  • The Court also by the writ of Mandamus directed the respondents to have compliance with section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act 188 read with Rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, for registration of new registration mark of the vehicles.
  • At last, the Court also said that we leave it open to the respondent to check, scrutinize, screen, and verify the validity of the documents of any vehicle entering in UT of Jammu and Kashmir, having outside registration.
  • Therefore, both the petitions and the connected matters were dismissed.

What do you think about this case, is quashing of the notice right?

Share what you think about this in the comment section

"Loved reading this piece by Arpita Chauhan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  28  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query