Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a finance company, has approached this Court against the order dated 6.5.2003 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Lakhimpur Kheri, by means of which its prayer for granting fresh registration under Section 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been rejected.
(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner company, which is registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has its Head Office at Lakhimpur. It deals with motor vehicle finance and, thus, supplies vehicles on the basis of hire-purchase agreement to the interested parties. The petitioner company also comes within the definition of the term "dealer" as defined under Section 2 (8) of the Act. On the basis of hire-purchase agreement, a Mahindra and Mahindra Jeep was purchased by the respondent No. 4, for which the petitioner company advanced the finances. In pursuance of the said facility of providing finances, a hire-purchase agreement was entered into between the petitioner company and the respondent No. 4 on 19th July, 2002. The agreement provided for the payment of the amount advanced in given instalments at regular intervals. In view of the terms and conditions as laid down in the hire-purchase agreement, the motor vehicle was handed over to the respondent No. 4 and the same was got registered in his name in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The name of respondent No. 4 was recorded as registered owner as per the hire-purchase agreement with the petitioner company in the certificate of registration. The said vehicle was used by the respondent No. 4 for some time as public service vehicle covered by All U. P. Permit issued by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U. P. in his favour. It appears that the respondent No. 4 committed default in making the payment of instalments towards the amount advanced and, therefore, the petitioner company issued a notice dated 13.12.2002 for making the payment of dues, failing which it was to repossess the vehicle in accordance with the terms of the hire-purchase agreement. Respondent No. 4 did not respond to the said notice and, therefore, on 29th January, 2003, the petitioner company repossessed the aforesaid vehicle by taking it over from the respondent No. 4. The petitioner company also issued an auction notice on 5.2.2003, saying that in case the respondent No. 4 does not make the payment within seven days, the vehicle shall be auctioned as per provisions of the hire-purchase agreement. The petitioner company could not get the amount due from the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, it applied before the Regional Transport Officer for issuance of a fresh registration certificate in its favour as per provisions of Section 51 (5) of the Act on 15.2.2003. A reminder was also sent on 3.3.2003 for issuing a fresh registration certificate, but the same has been refused by the Regional Transport Officer on the ground that there are dues regarding the tax and additional tax against the said vehicle and unless they are cleared by the petitioner company, fresh registration certificate cannot be granted.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, the only defence, which has been taken, is that the petitioner company being a finance company and the vehicle being in its possession, would be deemed to be an "operator" within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 and, therefore, it is liable to make payment of taxes, which are due against the vehicle in question.;