THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25122 of 2009 Dated: 07.10.2010 Between: Shaik Baji, Krishna District and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The Road Transport Authority, Krishna District and two others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 25122 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners herein claim to be the owners of autos bearing No.AP-16-TT-5278 and A.P-16-TT-4385 respectively. The petitioners were served with show cause notices dated 15.09.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent alleging that the engine and chassis numbers of their auto rikshaws were tampered and calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be initiated under Section 55 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for cancelling the registration of the vehicles. Immediately thereafter the vehicles were seized by the respondents 2 and 3 and kept in the custody of the 3rd respondent- Inspector of Police. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their explanations dated 25.09.2009 denying the allegations. However, the registrations were cancelled by the 2nd respondent. Alleging that the 2nd respondent without considering the petitioner’s explanation had simply cancelled the registration and the said order was not even communicated to them, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the registration of the petitioners’ vehicles, particularly the action of the respondents in not communicating the said orders to the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the registrations of the vehicles were cancelled under Section 55 (5) of the Act vide proceedings dated 15.10.2009 and the said orders were also served on both the petitioners 1 and 2. It is further explained that C.I. of Police, Vijayawada by letter dated 29.07.2009 had reported that the Chassis number and Engine numbers were not visible and requested to offer the remarks of the Motor Vehicle Inspector concerned. On physical inspection, it was found by the Motor Vehicle Inspector that chassis number and engine number were tampered. Hence, the show cause notice dated 15.09.2009 was issued. After considering the explanations of the petitioners with reference to the material available on record, it was found that the explanations were not convincing and therefore, the registrations of the vehicles were cancelled. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has produced the original record before this Court which shows that the orders of cancellation dated 15.10.2009 were communicated to the petitioners by registered post and the same were received by the petitioners on 20.11.2009. The said procedure followed by the respondents 1 and 2 is inconsonance with the provisions of sub-section 5 of Section 55 of the Act, which reads as under: Section 55 Cancellation of registration: (5) If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration. (6) A registering authority cancelling the registration of a motor vehicle under Section 54 or under this section shall communicate such fact in writing to the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. It is also relevant to note that against such order passed by the registering authority under Section 55 of the Act, a remedy of appeal is available under Section 57 of the Act. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the orders of cancellation of registration dated 15.10.2009 within a period of four weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall receive and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 07.10.2010 KLP