E-Paper
Chandigarh administration challenges single-bench order allowing registration of car with artwork
COLOUR CODE Administration seeks urgent hearing before division bench, argues that single-judge bench misinterpreted Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act according to which owner can’t alter car beyond particulars in the registration certificate, provided by the manufacturer
Chandigarh: The Chandigarh administration has challenged a Punjab and Haryana high court single-judge judgment allowing the registration of a vehicle with artwork on its body. The administration is learnt to have requested the high court for an urgent hearing in the matter before a division bench. If not allowed, the petition can be filed but won’t be taken up immediately as only urgent cases are being heard in view of the Covid-19 outbreak.
On July 15, the single-judge bench of justice Jaishree Thakur had directed the Chandigarh administration to register the car within two weeks. The permission for the same had been denied in 2019.
The multi-coloured car, an Ambassador Grand Harit-C-1800, belongs to high court lawyer Ranjit Malhotra, who bought it from a diplomat of the European Union posted in Delhi in July last year.
The registering authority in Chandigarh refused to register the vehicle stating that the colour of the original vehicle had been changed from white to multi-colour. No vehicle can be altered to change the original specification made by the manufacturer, the UT maintained.
Following this, Malhotra moved the high court, claiming that the reason for buying the vehicle was the artwork by a Mexican artist Senkoe.
“The reason for denying registration merely on the ground that there is artwork on the body of the vehicle, where the base remains white, defies logic. Any reasonable person can easily make out that a white car had some artwork done upon it. Like a canvas with a spray of flowers, the base colour of the canvas would remain as it is,” the single-judge bench had said, allowing his plea.
POTENTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM
Now, the UT says allowing registration of this car would cause a serious potential law enforcement problem as in common practice a motor vehicle is identified by its registration number and colour by the authorities. The colour of a motor vehicle takes precedence since it is the most recognisable/distinguishable feature of a vehicle for its prima facie identification by authorities, including law enforcement, the plea prepared by the UT says.
The main argument it has taken is that the single-judge bench misinterpreted Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
According to Section 52, no owner of a motor vehicle can alter it beyond the particulars mentioned in the certificate of registration, which are provided by the manufacturer. The manufacturer issues a sale certificate, which contains the colour of the vehicle. Thereafter, it is reflected in the registration certificate and hence the same cannot be altered.
It has cited the Chandigarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, which do not allow alteration of colour. Colours such as olive green are not allowed to be painted on motor vehicles except defence vehicles is another argument by it.
It has also stated that case of the petitioner was not formally rejected, as contemplated under Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the administration was treading carefully since any decision in this case would be cited as a precedent in future.
