Rajesh Sood Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1058642
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-29-2013
AppellantRajesh Sood
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.1845 of 2013 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.1845 of 2013 date of decision:29. 01.2013 rajesh sood ....petitioner versus state of punjab and others ....respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.aalok jagga, advocate, for the petitioner.”1. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j.(oral) a piquant situation has been brought to the notice of this court by mr.jagga in this writ petition where two vehicles bearing the same registration number are plying on the road. the petitioner contends that he inherited car not pci-7 from his father and the same bears the same number plate of the vehicle owned by the 4th respondent. he points out to a letter dated 19.12.2012 (p-8) written by the district transport officer, patiala to both the petitioner and respondent no.4 admitting that by oversight, the same number stands allotted to two different vehicles. through this letter the petitioner and the respondent no.4 were called on 10.01.2013 to appear for corrective action. nothing has been done thereafter and there remain two vehicles on the road plying with the same number making plying of both cwp no.1845 of 2013 -2- vehicles unlawful. mr.jagga submits that the registration not pci-7 was allotted to the petitioner's father in 1987 and they have continuously used that number on their vehicle whereas the registration number assigned to respondent no.4 was issued in 2011, evidence of which is annexure p-6. the petitioner has demonstrated a prior claim of mark pci-7 and the other vehicle should be given a new number. let the district transport officer, patiala decide the matter at the earliest and definitely within seven days of receipt of certified copy of this order and, in case, it is found that registration mark pci-7 was allotted to the petitioner prior to the respondent no.4 then suitable order be passed protecting the petitioner's right to his valuable number and allotting a fresh registration number to the vehicle owned by respondent no.4. disposed of in the above terms.(rajiv narain raina) judge 29 01.2013 manju
Judgment:

CWP No.1845 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1845 of 2013 Date of Decision:

29. 01.2013 Rajesh Sood ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Aalok Jagga, Advocate, for the petitioner.”

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral) A piquant situation has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mr.Jagga in this writ petition where two vehicles bearing the same registration number are plying on the road.

The petitioner contends that he inherited car not PCI-7 from his father and the same bears the same number plate of the vehicle owned by the 4th respondent.

He points out to a letter dated 19.12.2012 (P-8) written by the District Transport officer, Patiala to both the petitioner and respondent No.4 admitting that by oversight, the same number stands allotted to two different vehicles.

Through this letter the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were called on 10.01.2013 to appear for corrective action.

Nothing has been done thereafter and there remain two vehicles on the road plying with the same number making plying of both CWP No.1845 of 2013 -2- vehicles unlawful.

Mr.Jagga submits that the registration not PCI-7 was allotted to the petitioner's father in 1987 and they have continuously used that number on their vehicle whereas the registration number assigned to respondent No.4 was issued in 2011, evidence of which is Annexure P-6.

The petitioner has demonstrated a prior claim of mark PCI-7 and the other vehicle should be given a new number.

Let the District Transport Officer, Patiala decide the matter at the earliest and definitely within seven days of receipt of certified copy of this order and, in case, it is found that registration mark PCI-7 was allotted to the petitioner prior to the respondent No.4 then suitable order be passed protecting the petitioner's right to his valuable number and allotting a fresh registration number to the vehicle owned by respondent No.4.

Disposed of in the above terMs.(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 29 01.2013 manju