Srinagar, April 19:The Jammu Kashmir High Court (HC) Monday directed Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Kashmir, to appear before the court and explain his position on a recent circular regarding re-registration of vehicles purchased outside J&K.

The division bench of Justices, Ali Mohammed Magrey and Vinod Chatterji Koul directed RTO, Kashmir, to remain present along with the records of the recent circular issued on March 27, 2021 by April 21.

In this regard, the court also directed Registrar Judicial to allow the RTO to enter the court premises for his appearance.

In previous hearing, the court had said, "Prima facie there appears to be a consensus over the fact that while adhering to the provisions of law, the competent authority can seek such response from the owners whose vehicle remains in the state other than one from where the vehicle is purchased for a period exceeding 12 months, but the question is raised as to who that competent authority is?”

In this regard, the Court had directed the respondents to file their response "so that the controversy is set at rest."

In its response, the respondents have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds that no cause of action had accrued to the petitioner with reference to violation of any of his rights qua the action taken by respondents.

It stated that in implementation and adherence to the law and in application of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Section 50 and 54, the respondents have the authority to seek re-registration of the vehicles which have been purchased outside, but have been in J&K for a period exceeding 12 months.

Meanwhile, in another allied issue, the court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their response by the next date of hearing.

Earlier, two petitions were moved before the court challenging the circular. The circular has made it mandatory for owners who have purchased vehicles bearing outside J&K registration numbers to apply for a new Registration Mark as per the provisions of Section 47/50 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Rule 54 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 within a period of 15 days failing which, it said, action as warranted would be initiated against them.

The petitions stated that the circular issued by the RTO, Kashmir, was in contravention of Section 47 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

"A perusal of Section 47 would reveal that the jurisdiction for assigning a new registration mark on a vehicle is within the jurisdiction of the Central Government," it stated.

The petitioners have submitted that for the implementation of Section 47 and for the assigning of a new Registration Mark, the vehicle removed from one State to the other must have been kept in the other state for a continuous period of more than 12 months.

As per the petition, the respondents after issuance of the circular had resorted to en-masse seizure of vehicles without following the provisions of the law and in absence of any authority for seizing the vehicles, contravening the provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1988. 

The plea stated that the respondents cannot seize vehicles bearing the registration mark of other States of the country.

“Therefore, the impugned circular issued by the respondents has been put to misuse and has resulted in causing a great inconvenience to the public,” it stated.