Rumit Kumar v. Transport Department GNCTD

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26.03.2024 passed by Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (Appellate Authority), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. W.P.(C) 5690/2024 and CM APPL.23494/2024 (Stay)

2. Vide the said appeal, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 26.04.2023, whereby the registration of motor vehicle of the petitioner i.e., Vehicle No.DL8CAX-3715 was suspended.

3. Initially, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition challenging the aforesaid suspension of his vehicle vide W.P.(C) 1033/2024. The same was disposed of vide order dated 23.01.2024 in the following terms:

4. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 26.03.2024 came to be passed, which reads as under: “GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (APPELLANTE AUTHORITY) 5/9 UNDER HILL ROAD CIVIL LINES, DELHI 110054 Appeal No. SCOT/AA/Tpt/2024/9926 Dated: 26.03.2024 IN THE MATTER OF Sh. Rumit Kumar s/o Sh. Raj Kumar r/o H. No.609, Khera Khurd, North West, Delhi-110082 VS MLO (Wazirpur), Transport Department, Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is in bereft of any reason whatsoever insofar as the various submissions made by the petitioner giving justification for bullet proofing of the vehicle, have not been considered and instead, the appeal has been dismissed on cryptic “Appeal of 53 Under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 This order shall dispose of an appeal file under Section 53 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by Sh.Sh. Rumit Kumar s/o Sh. Raj Kumar r/o H.NO. 609, Khera Khurd, North West, Delhi 110082 against order No. MLO/NWZ- I/TPT/2023/39043 dated 26.04.2023 by MLO(NWZ-I), Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi, regarding suspension of registration of Motor Vehicle Number DL8CAX-3715. Present Sh. Rumit Kumar (Appellant) and Sh. Joginder Dabas, DTO/MLO Wazirpur on 22.03.2024. DTO/MLO submitted that an appeal was received regarding revocation of suspension Order of vehicle No. DL8CAX-3715, which was suspended under section 53 of MV Act, vide order dated 26.04.2023 for illegal alteration/modification (Bullet proofing) of the Vehicle. Whereas, Section 52 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 does not allow any alteration/modification regarding bullet proofing of any vehicle. MLO/DTO received the information regarding illegal modification of the aforesaid vehicle by Investigation Officer Sh. Omvir Dabas, P.S Bawana, Delhi vide diary No. 722 dated 15.03.2023, wherein it is clearly stated that during investigation of case FIR No. 706/2022 U/s 25/35 Arms Act the vehicle bearing registration number DL8CAX-3715 was found illegally modified as bullet proof vehicle and request was made to take the necessary action as per the MV Act and to inform accordingly. As per Motor Vehicle Act, MLO/DTO (NWZ-I), Wazirpur Zonal Office, Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi issued Showcause notice vide notice number MLO/(NWZ-I)/TPT/2023/29227 dated 24.03.2023 under Section 53 to called upon within 10 days with proper justification as to why the registration of the vehicle be not suspended. The appellant did not respond the notice within stipulated time, so this office issued Order of Suspension on 26.04.2023. In view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is disposed of as there is no any provision of modification/alteration of vehicle in terms of Bullet Proofing in Motor Vehicle Act. Sd/- Appellate Authority/SCOT (Tpt) Copy to:

1. MLO(NWZ-I), Wazirpur, Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi.” and untenable grounds which are inconsistent with the statutory provisions.

6. A perusal of Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reveals that suspension of registration of vehicle is permissible on the following grounds:

(i) The vehicle is in such a condition that its use in public place would constitute a danger to the public, or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder, or

(ii) The vehicle has been, or is being, used for hire or reward without a valid permit for being used as such.

7. A perusal of the suspension order, as also the appellate order reveal that the same does not disclose as to how the conditions enumerated in Section 53 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are satisfied in the present case.

8. The fact that the Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not incorporate any provision allowing alteration/modification regarding bullet proofing of any vehicle does not imply that bullet proofing of a vehicle results in a situation whereby use of a vehicle in public place would constitute a danger to the public.

9. Moreover, the absence of any stipulation/provision regarding bullet proofing cannot by itself be a ground for suspension of registration of the vehicle, unless a finding is rendered as regards the statutorily prescribed parameters for suspension of registration, as set out in Section 53 (1) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

10. Significantly, the impugned order does not say that the bullet proofing of any vehicle is impermissible within the framework of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

11. I find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid aspects are required to be dealt with by the Appellate Authority and a speaking/reasoned order is required to be passed, taking into account the aforesaid aspects.