' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The petitioners are Insurance Companies involved in the business of selling 3rd party insurance. On their complaints that the vehicle owners avoid getting the vehicles insured, a directive was issued by respondent No,2 on 30-4-2002 making production of 3rd Party Risk insurance policy issued by the authorized insurer or listed Insurance Companies at the time of registration of vehicle. Thereafter a directive was issued on 19-12-2002 (Annex.B) modifying the said directive Annex-A stating that production of the insurance certificate will be required only at the time of re-registration/transfer of vehicle and not on the first registration. Some other Insurance Companies filed W.P.No,4941 of 2003 in this Court which was disposed of on the assurance of respondent No,2 that the Department will act in strict accordance with law, yet another W.P. No,3991 of 2004 was filed by the North Star Insurance Company. The matter was referred to respondent No,2 for decision. Vide order dated 31-7-2004 (Annex-D) the respondent No,2 has passed an order stating that it is not permissible under the law to call upon a person to produce insurance certificate at the time of first registration.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it was mandatory requirement under section 94 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that no person shall use except as a passenger cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirement of Chapter VIII of the said Act. The said requirements are narrated in section 95 of the said Act, 1939. The learned counsel draws my attention to section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 read with 14th Schedule thereto to urge that the said provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were kept intact. His contention is that earlier order Annex-A correctly reflects the intention of law and the compliance of the said provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were ensured and the impugned order Annex-D is without lawful authority 'inasmuch as it renders the said provisions unimplementable and redundant. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contends that for first registration of a vehicle, is provided for in section 25 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 while grounds for refusal of registration are so stated in section 28 thereof and these do not envisage absence of insurance certificate. However, section 34 of the said Ordinance has been enacted to ensure that implementation, of the said provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
He accordingly supports the impugned order of respondent No,2.
3. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Law Officer. I have examined the impugned order Annex-D and provisions of law being referred to in the said contentions. ,There is no manner of doubt in my mind that Chapter VIII the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 comprising provisions for insurance of vehicles has been kept intact upon a reading of section 122 read with 14th Schedule to Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.
4. The provisions for registration of motor vehicle are contained in Chapter III of the said Ordinance.
The mode of registration has been provided in section 25. Section 28 empowers Registering Authority to refuse to register any motor vehicle on the grounds narrated therein. I do find that non- presentation of insurance certificate as contemplated in section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is not one of the grounds so mentioned in section 28 for refusal of registration. However, section 34 of the said Ordinance authorizes the Registering Authority to suspend the registration certificate of a motor vehicle if the vehicle is not insured as required by law. Learned Addl. A.-G. Is right in contending that this provision takes effect at a point of time after the registration of the vehicle.
5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of respondent No,2 cannot be said to be without lawful authority' inasmuch as a provision or a directive to Registering authority to refuse the first registration for non-production of insurance certificate would, be tantamount to adding a ground for refusal in section 28 of the said Ordinance, 1965 which cannot be done without appropriate legislation. However, the matter does not end here section 107 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 authorized Provincial Government to make rules, inter alia, to ensure that on the date when authority to use motor vehicle comes into operation there will be in force the necessary policy of insurance in relation to the use of the vehicle by the applicant or by other person on his order or with , his permission. The Provincial Government in Transport Department as 'also Excise and Taxation Department will accordingly take steps to frame such Rules which to my mind would not be inconsistent with the provisions of section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the entire Chapter VIII of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Chapter III of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 shall stand harmonized. With the observations, writ petition is disposed of.