1 W.P. No. 15406/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 15406/2010 ......... Petitioner Mahendra Kumar Khare S/o Shri Nathuram Khare, Aged about 65 years, R/o Civil Ward No.4, District Damoh, M.P. Versus ........ Respondents 1. The State of M.P. Through-Commissioner, Excise Department, Moti Mahal, Gwalior, M.P. 2. The District Excise Officer, District-Damoh, M.P. 3. The Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Department, District-Damoh, M.P. 4. Pankaj Jaiswal, S/o Shri Vishnu Narayan Jaiswal, Aged about 43 years, R/o SH 14-A, Vaishali Nagar, District-Damoh, M.P. ................................................................................................ Petitioner - Shri Vishal Dhagat, Advocate. Respondent/State - Shri Harish Agnihotri, Government Advocate. ................................................................................................ O R D E R (11/03/2011) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 2 W.P. No. 15406/2010 “(i) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the order dated 19.10.2010 passed in Case No. Excise/2010/1656. (ii) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the procedure of seizure and confiscation of the vehicle No. MP-34-C-0560 by the respondents. (iii) That, Hon'ble Court may kindly pass any other order/writ which it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in an excise matter, the car of the petitioner Maruti Swift bearing registration No. MP-34-C-0560 has been seized by the Excise Department. The petitioner submitted a petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No. 13908/2010 (Mahendra Kumar Khare Vs The State of M.P. and others) and vide order dated 04.10.2010, the said petition was disposed of by giving direction to file necessary application before the District Excise Officer in respect to release of the vehicle and accordingly, the petitioner submitted requisite application before the Excise Officer which has been rejected holding that the name of the petitioner has not been registered in the R.T.O. Office and the registered owner is respondent no.4 Pankaj Jaiswal. The contention of learned counsel is that petitioner has purchased the said vehicle from respondent no.4 Pankaj Jaiswal and merely because after purchasing the said vehicle the same was not got registered in the R.T.O. Office would not disentitle him 3 W.P. No. 15406/2010 from obtaining the custody of the impugned vehicle. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 2007(1) M.P.H.T. 520 Dashrath Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. 3. On the other hand, Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the order of the District Excise Officer and submitted that since the impugned vehicle has not been registered in the name of the petitioner, rightly it has not been given to the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. The authenticity of Annexure P/1 by which the vehicle has been sold by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner has not been challenged. On bare perusal of this document, it is gathered that for a consideration of Rs. one lac, the vehicle no. MP34C-0560 having Chasis No. MA3EYD41S00166905, Engine No. G13BBN294179 was sold to the petitioner on 08.09.2010. This vehicle was seized because some entertainment duty was to be realized from the respondent no.4. 5. This Court in Dashrath Prasad (supra) has held that in case of sale/transfer of movable property the title of the property passes to transferee as soon as the price is paid and the possession of the vehicle is delivered to transferee. The motor vehicle being movable property its sale is covered under the 4 W.P. No. 15406/2010 provisions of Sales of Goods Act. The registration of the vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act is only for the purpose of fixing ostensible ownership for the liability of taxes etc. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the view because the vehicle was already sold to the petitioner, the entertainment duty cannot be realized from said vehicle which has been sold to the petitioner and the District Excise Officer (respondent no.2) is hereby directed to deliver the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 5 W.P. No. 15406/2010 W.P. No. 15406/10 11.03.2011 Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Goernment Advocate for the respondent/State. Although today the matter has been listed for consideration of I.A. No.271/11 which is an application for vacating stay order and also for consideration of I.A. No.794/2011, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is heard finally. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao