The petitioner contends that the petitioner is owner of a tanker with registration No.KL 7/AS 5799 and that he is denied payment of tax only because the original registration certificate is not produced. The original registration certificate admittedly, is with the 2nd respondent, who has granted a finance for purchase of the subject vehicle. The 2nd respondent though has appeared has not filed counter affidavit. 2. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioner himself submits that there is a dispute with the 2nd respondent which definitely would have to be agitated before the appropriate civil forum, since, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have a contractual relationship. In any event, the tax can be accepted by the authority only on production of the original registration certificate. Rule 4 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules specifies that for acceptance of the tax by the competent authority, the original of the registration certificate is to be produced. Having admitted the hire-purchase transaction, the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the liability nor can the petitioner be allowed to pay tax without production of the original registration certificate.
3. Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 incorporates special provisions regarding hire purchase agreement. Under sub-section (6) of Section 51, the financier is also given certain rights insofar as objecting to renewal of permit and so on and so forth. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the payment of tax is not specifically referred to in sub-section (6). That is because, after endorsing a hire-purchase in the registration certificate, there would no purpose in the financier retaining the registration certificate.
4. It is not clear as to what is the contract between the parties and why the 2nd respondent has retained the registration certificate with itself. That however, would not be a question which could be looked into by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering the fact that there is specific rule which mandates production of original registration certificate for payment of tax, this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the authority to go against the mandate in the rule.
5. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Ext.P3, is of no consequence; wherein the financier had specifically submitted before Court that they do not have possession of the vehicle or possession of the registration certificate and they have no objection in the 1st respondent receiving the motor vehicle tax from the petitioner therein. Further, this Court does not find any binding dictum in Ext.P3 judgment, which merely made the interim order absolute.
6. In the present case also there was an interim direction to the first respondent to receive motor vehicle tax, of the subject vehicle, provisionally, without insisting for production of the original registration certificate. This Court having found the writ petition to be devoid of merit, there could be no continuance of the such interim order. The petitioner wold be entitled to take up the issue with the 2nd respondent and also before the Taxation Authority as to payment of tax, however, complying with the mandatory provision.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, jma Judge //true copy// P.A to Judge