# Jay Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 554 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-11-06 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 8242 of 2019 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Vivek Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jay-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45016 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Law - Compassionate appointment- Application not moved within a reasonable time - nor offered any explanation for delay - further scheme for such appointment cannot be given retrospective effect -scheme to be strictly constructed-impugned order do not suffer from any infirmity. Held -any delay on the part of the dependants of the deceased employee has to be explained in order to enable the public authority to examine whether the family of the deceased ## Text 554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. Cost made easy. ---------- (2019)12 ILR A554 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J. Writ A No. 8242 of 2019 Jay Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Kamaluddin Khan Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Law of Torts - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 45 - Power of Registering Officer to refuse registration - Refusal on ground of traffic problem in the city is patently without jurisdiction-power to refuse - limited to grounds mentioned under section 45 - if he has reason to believe that vehicle is stolen or defective-or fails to comply with requirements of Act-or if Applicants fails to furnish necessary particulars - Resolution quashed. Writ Petition allowed. (E-9) List of cases cited: - 1. Mohd. Aman and 3 ors vs. St. Of U.P. & 5 ors- Writ A no. 17235 of 2018 (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Kamaluddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have preferred this petition so as to challenge the Condition No.3 of the Resolution No. 1.9 passed on 27.02.2018 in the meeting of the Divisional Road Safety Committee headed by the Commissioner of the Division. 3. The aforesaid condition states that in the district of Meerut, about 1300 valid registrations have been granted for plying of the e-rickshaws. Thus looking to the traffic condition it has been decided not to grant any further registrations to erickshaws in the district until further orders. 4. The petitioners are all owners of e-rickshaws and their e-rickshaws are not being registered by the Regional Transport Authority on the basis of the aforesaid resolution. 5. The Court while entertaining the writ petition on being prima-facie satisfied that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which allows the authorities to stop the registration of any vehicle much less that of e-rickshaws on the ground of traffic condition issued an ad-interim mandamus to the respondents to register e-rickshaws owned by the petitioners in accordance with law provided petitioners furnish all the necessary documents and produce erickshaws before the competent authority or to show-cause by filing counter affidavit within 3 weeks. 6. In pursuance to the above interim direction, neither the e-rickshaws of the petitioners have been registered despite 4 All. Jay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 555 their production before the authority concerned and furnishing of all papers nor any counter affidavit has been filed explaining any legal impediment in such registration. 7. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for the registration of the motor vehicles and Section 45 thereof gives power to the Registering Officer to refuse registration. The Registration can be refused only on the limited grounds mentioned therein if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the vehicle is a stolen one or is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules made therein, or if the applicant fails to furnish necessary particulars. No other ground for refusal has been prescribed therein. The traffic problem of the area, city or town is not a ground on which registration of any motor vehicle can be refused. 8. In one of the cases before this Court i.e. Writ A No. 17235 of 2018 (Mohd Aman and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), a Division Bench of this Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, deemed it appropriate to dispose off a similar writ petition refusing registration of e-rickshaws with the direction to the Transport Authorities to register the e-rickshaws in accordance with law provided the owners thereof furnish all necessary papers and present their e-rickshaws before the competent authority. 9. In view of the above, we have no option but to make the above interim direction to be absolute more particularly for the reason that the Resolution impugned is patently without jurisdiction as there is no provision under the Act which authorizes the respondent authorities to refuse registration or to keep the registration in abeyance on account of traffic conditions in the city. 10. Accordingly, the Resolution dated 27.02.2018 is quashed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to register the e-rickshaws of the petitioners on the fulfilment of the necessary formalities. 11. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. ---------- (2019)12 ILR A555 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J. Writ A No. 15941 of 2019 Mukesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arvind Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Sri Aditya Kumar Singh A. Service Law - Compassionate appointment- Application not moved within a reasonable time - nor offered any explanation for delay - further scheme for such appointment cannot be given retrospective effect -scheme to be strictly constructed-impugned order do not suffer from any infirmity. Held -any delay on the part of the dependants of the deceased employee has to be explained in order to enable the public authority to examine whether the family of the deceased