Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J.
1. This writ petition has come to us on a reference made by our learned brother Obul Reddi, j. on 26-4-1973. The learned Judge thought that the judgement of Madhava Reddy, J. given in Writ Petition No. 1243 of 1967, is in conflict with a Bench Decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Shri Ratan v. State Transport Authority, . Since the question involved is of considerable importance, he thought that an authoritative pronouncement is required.
2. The facts, in brief are : that the petitioner herein purchased a lorry bearing No. APK 4125 on 26-6-1966, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The transferee submitted the necessary papers to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, that is to say, the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad for making the necessary entry in regard to the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle.
3. Since the Tahsildar, Hyderabad , has informed the Regional Transport Authority that the said lorry was under an attachment for the recovery of arrears of revenue, due from the tranferor , the Regional Transport authority refused to make the necessary entries.
4. The transferee then appeared before the Tahsildar. His contention before the Tahsildar was that the lorry in question, was sold to him long prior to its attachment by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar enquired into that claim of the petitioner, and raised the attachment by his order dated 24-3-1967.
5. A copy of the said order of the Tahsildar was then produced before the Regional Transport Authority, by the transferee. He requested the Regional Transport Authority to effect the necessary entries of transfer of the said lorry.
6. The R.T.A. even this time , rejected the request of the petitioner-transferee.
7. Writ Petition No. 1243 of 1967 was, consequently, filed by the transferee in this Court. Our learned brother , Madhava Reddy, J. allowed that writ petition and directed the Regional Transport Authority to make an enquiry into the question of transfer of the said vehicle , and then pass suitable orders.
8. When the matter thus went back to the Regional Transport Authority, he, once again , rejected the request of the transferee, by his order dated 7-8-1971.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 7-8-1971, the transferee preferred an appeal to the Transport Commissioner. The Transport Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 15-9-1971, held that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, was one under Section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act.') , and that such an order is not appealable under Section 35 of the Act. He, consequently, rejected the appeal as not entertainable. It is this view of the Transport Commissioner, that was challenged in the Writ Petition.
10. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, relying upon the above said Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court, it was argued that the registering authority has no power to make enquiries. Since there was a conflict of view between the two courts, the learned Judge referred the matter to the Bench.
11. When that matter was argued before us, the question which was referred by the learned Single Judge to us, was not argued. Instead it was submitted that the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 7-8-1971 comes within the purview of Section 27 of the M.V. Act and as a result, it is appealable under S. 35 of the Act.
12. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to read some of the provisions of the Act. Section 27 relates to refusal of registration. It stated :-
'Section 27 :- The registering authority may refuse to register any motor vehicle if the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter V of the rules made thereunder, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle , or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of such vehicle and it shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration with reasons in writing for such refusal.'
13. An analytical and close reading of that Section would reveal, firstly, that it relates to the refusal of registration, and has very little to do with the transfer of ownership of any vehicle. The registration can be refused, according to that Section, firstly on the ground that the vehicle is machanically defective; secondly, when the owner has failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter V or the rules made thereunder; thirdly, if the applicant failed to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle; and finally if the applicant furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of such vehicle.
14. What is plain , therefore, is that the registration can be refused only on any one or more of the grounds expressly mentioned in Section 27 of the Act.
15. We then fo to Section 31 of the Act, which relates to transfer of ownership. According to that section, where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under the said chapter, is transferred , certain obligation is cast both on the transferor as well as the transferee, to report the transfer to the Registering Authority, within a particular time. It is only when such particulars are furnished and report is made that the particulars of the transfer of ownership are entered in the Certificate of Registration. The whole purpose of Section 31 is merely to record, in the Certificate of Registration, the particulars relating to the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. In order to apply Section 31, there must be a motor vehicle, which is already registered. It is only in cases of transfer of such registered vehicles that the particulars of transfer of ownership are required to be entered in the Certificate of Registration. What follows is that Section 31 of the Act has no bearing whatsoever on the question of registration, or its refusal. It is Section 27 which concerns with that question and not Section 31. The difference between the two sections is prominent and conspicuous. While Section 27 relates to the refusal of registration, Section 31 permits to record or refuse to record the transfer of ownership. This difference will be found to have been maintained in Section 35 of the Act, whereunder certain are made appealable.
16. Section 35 of the Act makes the following orders appealable :-
(I) an order of refusal under Section 27 to register a motor vehicle ;
(ii) an order made under sub-section (1) of S. 38 to issue a certificate of fitness;
(iii) an order of suspension or cancellation made under Section 33 or Section 34; and
(iv) an order of cancellation under sub-section (3) of S. 38.
The owner of a motor vehicle , aggrieved by any of the aforesaid orders, can appeal to the Transport Commissioner.
17. The short, question, therfore, is whether an order, refusing to record particulars of the transfer of ownership in the Certificate of Registration, under Section 31 of the M.V. Act , is appealable under Section 35.
18. It was not disputed that , since Section 35 of the Act does not expressly or by necessary implication , make an order passed under Section 31, appealable , no appeal is maintainable against any such order. The contention, however, was that since refusal to make entries of the transfer of ownwership in the Certificate of Registration, amounts to refusal of registration in favour of the transferee, such an order would come under Section 27 of the Act. What is, however, ignored in advancing this argument is that, unless the ownership of a vehicle itself is recognized under Section 31, the question of registration or its refusal does not arise at all. More important than that, as seen, is that for the pruposes of Section 31 a motor vehicle must have been regsitered before the transfer of ownership is entered in the Certificate of Registration. What is refused under Section 31 is not the registration , but the entry regarding the transfer of ownership in the Certificate of Registration. We fail, therefore, to see how any order passed under S. 31 can be brought under Section 27 of the Act.
19. Apart from the grounds mentioned in Section 27 of the Act, on which registration of a motor vehicle can be refused, the court cannot take the liberty of adding one more ground in Section 27 , by stating that the refusal to enter the transfer of ownership in the Certificate of Registration would be an order made under Section 27. That would amount to a legislation, a feild into which the courts are prohibited from entering.
20. Section 35 also , if plainly read, does not warrant the treatment of an order passed under Section 31, as an order made under Section 27. There is no place , either in Section 27 or in Section 35 , for an order expressly passed under Section 31, to be deemed to be an order made under Section 27, so as to make it appealable under Section 35 of the Act.
21. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in . After going through the said decision carefully and with great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view expressed therein. Their Lordships held that :
'........... We agree with the reasoning given by the R.T.A. for holding that an order refusing to record the transfer of ownership on a registration certificate as required by Section 31 should be deemed to be an order passed under Section 27 of the Act which is appealable under Section 35 ..................'
We have already given our reasons for not agreeing with such a view.
22. For the reasons stated above, we agree with the view taken by the Transport Commissioner that the order made by the Regional Transport Authority on 7-8-1971 was an order made expressly under Section 31 of the Act, and that order cannot be deemed to be an order passed under Section 27 so as to make it appealable under Section 35 of the Act. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.
23. Petition dismissed.