CWP/2791/2015 on 30 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP No. 2791 of 2015

Decided on: 30th December, 2015

Rajeev Oberoi

.......Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P and another

...Respondents.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anita Dogra, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Virender Verma, Addl. A.G and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. A.G.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “a) Pass an appropriate writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 6.5.2015, Annexure P-6 passed by respondent No. 2.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that pursuant to auction notice Annexure P-1 qua 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

auction of Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. HP-38A- 0001 by the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nurpur, one Rakesh Kumar had participated in the auction proceedings having taken place on 17.7.2010. Reference in this behalf can be made to Annexure P-2, the auction proceedings. Said Sh. Rakesh Kumar being the highest bidder, the vehicle was sold to him in a sum of `90,000/-. The vehicle was purchased from Sh. Rakesh Kumar by the petitioner. Now the petitioner is registered owner thereof. Respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Nurpur has now served the petitioner with letter dated 31.7.2014, Annexure P-4 and thereby he has been called upon to surrender the registration No. HP- 38A-0001 within one month. The petitioner filed reply to the notice Annexure P-4 and refused to surrender the number on the ground that there is no agreement/contract between him and respondent No.

2. Also that, he is not bound to pay `75,000/- in lieu of retention of this number. Respondent No. 2 in his capacity as Registering and Licensing Authority, Nurpur has passed the order Annexure P-6 and directed the

petitioner not to use registration No. HP-38A-0001 after 1st June, 2015 having withdrawn from him. It is this order, which is under challenge and has been sought to be quashed and set aside by the petitioner.

3. In reply, the stand of the respondent-State is that during audit of the office of respondent No. 2, the audit party has raised the objection that registration number could have not been auctioned along with the vehicle and rather withdrawn and sold under the Government policy in a sum of `75,000/-.

4. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder reiterating therein the case as set out in the written statement and denied the claim to the contrary raised by the respondent-State being wrong.

5. Having gone through the record and also submissions made on both sides, it is apparent from the auction notice, Annexure P-1 that no condition qua auction of the vehicle without registration number was there and rather the same was offered to be sold in auction with its registration No. HP-38A-0001. Even at the time of auction also, Sh. Rakesh Kumar being the highest

bidder was given the possession of the vehicle with its registration No. HP-38A-0001 on payment of sale consideration by him. Now, it is after a period over four years from the auction, notice Annexure P-4 has been issued to the petitioner and thereby he has been called upon to pay a sum of `75,000/- or release the registration No. HP-38A-0001 in favour of office of respondent No. 2. This notice has been issued pursuant to objection raised by the audit party of the office of Advocate General. The objection so raised cannot have precedence over the auction proceedings as on the basis thereof the petitioner who has purchased the vehicle from Sh. Rakesh Kumar aforesaid can not be forced to release registration No. HP-38A-0001 for the reason that respondent No. 2 has sold the vehicle without imposing any such condition in the auction notice and even at the time of auction also. Had any such condition been imposed, the petitioner may have not opted for purchasing the vehicle in question. Notice Annexure P-4 and also order Annexure P-6 are, therefore, neither legally nor factually sustainable.

6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.5.2015, Annexure P-6 is quashed and set aside. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. December 30, 2015 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) (naveen)

Judge