- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.25367 OF 2024 (MV) BETWEEN: M/S MANDOVI MOTORS PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.133, BULL TEMPLE ROAD, KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR, CHAMARAJAPET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 018. REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. SUKESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE GOPAL SHETTY, HAVING THE SHOWROOM AT M/S NEXA MANDOVI MOTORS PVT LTD., NO.33/2, ALLALSANDRA GATE, YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, I FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC BLDG, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 REP. BY COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT, ARSIKERE MAIN ROAD, KATE HALLI, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.H., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 14/08/2024 BEARING NO. HSN/RTO/13/01/2024/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, ‘a Dealer', is aggrieved by the Notice dated 14.08.2024 [Annexure-A] issued by the second respondent under Sections 182A[1] and 192B[2] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, 'the MV Act']. The second respondent has issued this notice asserting that a Maruti Baleno with definite Engine and Chassis numbers was intercepted by the Enforcing Authority, and it is found out that this vehicle was on a public road without a valid Registration and exhibition of Registration mark. 2. The impugned notice further reads that upon enquiring Sri Jaipal, who was driving the vehicle at the time of interception, the Enforcement Authority was informed that he was driving the vehicle from Mangaluru to Bengaluru and without registration mark, but he has produced a copy of the Trade Certificate issued in Form No.17 and a copy of the insurance policy. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 3. The second respondent, after reference to the afore, has opined that Section 39 of the MV Act stipulates that no person shall drive a motor vehicle, or no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in a public place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with law, and because the petitioner has allowed the vehicle to be so driven, there is violation as contemplated under Sections 182A[1] and 192B[2] of the MV Act, calling upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs,2,45,546/- as fine. This amount is twice the lifetime tax payable for the vehicle. 4. It is undisputed that simultaneously with issuing the impugned Notice, penal proceedings have begun. The petitioner has called in question the initiation of such proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [for short, 'the Cr.PC'] which is allowed. Sri Nataraja A. Ballal, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the aforesaid decision would foreclose any dispute on facts, and it will be beyond dispute that the petitioner had permitted the vehicle to be driven from one of its showrooms at Mangaluru to one of its showroom in Bengaluru, and it would be permissible to use the vehicle in a public place based on a Trade Registration mark [Trade Certificate issued under Rule 17] if it is to proceed from the premises of one dealer to the premises of another. 5. Sri Nataraja A. Ballal also canvasses that the prohibition to drive a vehicle without Registration as is contained in Section 39 of the MV Act is subject to the exception as contemplated under the proviso appended thereto and that Rule 41[d] of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [for short, 'the CMV Rules] would operate and the proceedings cannot be justified. Sri Raghavendra S H, the learned Additional Government Advocate, initially resisted the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 petition, contending that the petitioner cannot rely upon the Trade Certificate that is appended to the petition because it can be shown that such Certificate had expired. When permitted, Shri Nataraja Ballal has placed on record a copy of the Certificate, which shows that it is renewed for the period between 01.06.2024 and 31.05.2025 for twelve vehicles. 6. Sri Raghavendra S H next submits that this Court must sustain the impugned Notice because there is violation of Rule 43 of the CMV Rules, and in this regard, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relying upon the provisions of these Rules, submits that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to maintain an Electronic Register in the prescribed form and to enter the details in electronic form before commencement of the trip, but the petitioner has failed in these regards. 7. These rival submissions are considered in the light of the provisions of Section 39 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 of the MV Act and Rule 41[d] of the CMV Rules, which read as under: "39. Necessity for registration.—No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government." "41. Purposes for which motor vehicle with trade certificate may be used.— The holder of a trade certificate shall not use any vehicle in a public place under that certificate for any purpose other than the following:— (a) xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx (c) xxxx xxxx xxxx - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 (d) for proceeding to or returning from the premises of the dealer or of the purchaser or of any other dealer for the purpose of delivery." 8. This Court finds force in the submission that if the general Rule is that no vehicle can be permitted to ply on a public road without Registration as is contained under Section 39 of the MV Act, the exception thereto is in the proviso to such section. The exception will apply to a motor vehicle in the possession of a dealer provided the use of the vehicle is according to the conditions prescribed by the Central Government. The conditions contemplated under the Proviso are relatable to the circumstances mentioned in Rule 41 of the CMV Rules. Under these Rules, it would be permissible for a dealer who has a Trade Certificate to proceed from his premises either to the premises of a purchaser or of any other dealer for delivery of the vehicle. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 9. In view of the concluded proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.PC, it would be beyond cavil that the petitioner had permitted the vehicle to be driven from its showroom in Mangaluru to its another showroom under another name and style. If this is the law and if the petitioner has a valid Trade Certificate as is now established, the impugned notice cannot be sustained. 10. On the question of violation of the requirements under Rule 43 of the CMV Rules, it would suffice for this Court to observe that such violation, even if any, cannot be used to justify the issuance of the impugned Notice, and the merits of such notice must be tested as against the reasons mentioned. This Court must further observe that if the respondents could initiate action for violation of the requirements of Rule 43 of the CMV Rules, that should be a separate cause, and there cannot be closure on that score in the present proceedings - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14875 WP No. 25367 of 2024 where just the merits of the second respondent's impugned Notice dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-A) are examined. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The second respondent's impugned Notice dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure-A) is quashed subject to observations as aforesaid. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12