' This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1305/81, 3768/81, 5993/81, 761/82 and 1077/82.
2. The petitioners are motorcycle dealers. They purchase motorcycles from the Manufacturers and sell them in the market. They feel aggrieved of notices given to them by the respondent asking them to register themselves under the Punjab Real Estate Agents and Motor Vehicles Dealers (Regulation of Business) Ordinance, 1980. According to the petitioners this law does not affect their business and they are not liable to register themselves under this law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the object of the law is to regulate the business only of such persons who negotiate a transaction between a seller and a buyer and may roughly be called brokers and not of those who make the first sale of a new motor vehicle. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the last part of the definition relating to a person "who deals in sale or purchase of motor vehicles" is controlled by the first part of the definition which relates to persons who arrange a sale between 'a buyer and a seller. He finds support from section 7 of the Ordinance which provides for fixation of the commission as also from rule 14(2) of the rules of the same name of 1980 in which the maximum commission of a dealer has been fixed as one per cent. Of the value of the motor vehicle.
4. Section 2(c) of Ordinance VI of 1980 defines motor vehicle dealer as follows :- " 'motor vehicle dealer' means a person who arranges or negotiates only transaction of sale, exchange, transfer or pledge of a motor vehicle in consideration of some commission or other remuneration in cash or otherwise or who deals in sale or purchase of motor vehicles."
' There is no disputing the fact that there are many categories of persons who are engaged in the business of sale or purchase of motor vehicles. Some may conveniently be called brokers who act merely as go between, between two persons, one interested in selling and the other in the buying of the vehicle. There may be yet another category of the brokers who instead of acting as a go between may actually purchase a vehicle and sell it to another. The third category is the one to which the petitioners belong. They buy new motor vehicles from the manufacturers and sell them in the market charging the price prevailing in the market. The brokers obviously charge a brokerage or a commission maximum of which has been fixed at one per cent. But the second category of the broker merely makes a profit depending on the difference between the sale and purchase price. The third category to which the petitioners belong also have a similar business except that they purchase new motor vehicles from the manufacturers and sell them in the market. The question which now needs examination is whether the law makes any distinction for any of these categories and deals only with one or more of them and not all of them. A plain reading of section 2(c) reveals that it takes into account all the above-mentioned categories of dealers. The last part of the definition is a conscious effort to include a new category and is not a mere elaboration of the first part. There is no reason to support the contention that it excludes the third category to which the petitioners belong. No distinction can be found from the language of the legislation to suggest that the persons who buy new motor vehicles from the manufacturers for sale in the market are exempt from application of Ordinance VI of 1980.
5. The term 'commission' has been used in section 7 as also in the rules. This term easily applies to a broker who acts as a go between. But as regards the remaining two categories of persons who buy a vehicle and then sell it, the application of term 'commission' or other remuneration will be problematic. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, who appeared on behalf of the State is conscious of this difficulty but there is force in his argument that any imperfection of the law cannot be used to defeat the object of a law. It may also be noticed that the law is meant to regulate the business of motor vehicle dealers and the real estate agents and the regulation of the business is not confined to fixation of commission only but it also provides for maintenance of up- to-date record of all transactions with consequential benefit of being able to trace the title of the real estate or the motor vehicle.
' For the above reasons, these writ petitions are dismissed with costs.
Writ .