JAYASHREE TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for M/S Sarnath Hire Purchase (P) Limited challenging the order of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration), Ghazipur/Registering Authority, Ghazipur and others, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the said authority as also a writ of mandamus directing to respondent no. 1 to take appropriate action for expunging the entry dated 27.04.1998 relating to cancellation of hire purchase agreement on the registration certificate of Vehicle No. U.P. 61/6239.
(2.) IN short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of financing of Motor Vehicles on Hire Purchase basis. It had financed more than 2000 vehicles till date. The respondent no. 2 Sri Waris Khan, son of Sri Shamsuddin Khan, resident of C/O Khan Travels, Taxi Stand, Ghazipur, entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner under which the petitioner Company financed him for purchasing a Chassis (Bus) which was payable under the hire purchase agreement in 35 monthly instalments.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY section 51 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 60 Forum 34 was duly submitted on the basis of which endorsement regarding hire purchase agreement was made on the vehicle, by the Registering Authority. At the time of registration of the vehicle, the respondent no. 2 defaulted in payment of monthly instalments. Consequently, a legal notice was sent to respondent no. 2 by registered post calling upon him to make the payments. On 27.04.1998, the respondent no. 2 submitted forged Form 35 before the Registering Authority for expunging the endorsement of hire purchase agreement on the registration certificate. It bears forged signatures of the Director of the petitioner Company. On the basis of the aforesaid forged Form 35, submitted by respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 cancelled the entry on the registration certificate regarding hire purchase agreement. The petitioner Company on coming to know of the fraud committed by respondent no. 2, made a complaint to the Transport Commissioner, Lucknow. On 16.9.1999, the petitioner Company also applied by way of application for expunging the endorsement regarding cancellation of hire purchase agreement. The Manager of the petitioner Company filed an affidavit categorically stating that Form 35 does not bear the signature of the Director of the Company and has been forgedfully prepared by the respondent no. 2. On May, 2001, the respondent no. 1/3 was transferred. On 15.06.2001, an order purporting to have been passed by respondent no. 1 on 28.04.2001 was sent to the petitioner by registered post from the office of the respondent no. 1. The said registered post was received by the petitioner on 18.06.2001. It is contended that ante dated order passed by the respondent no. 1/3 after his transfer from the said post in May 2001, hence, the said order is wholly illegal and is liable to be quashed. Annexure 11 is an information regarding cancellation of hire purchase of hypothecation. The prayer of hire purchase agreement has been cancelled by compromise. Annexure 2 is a notice given by the petitioner Company to Sri Waris Khan, son of Sri Shamsuddin Khan, and Sri Abu Zafar son of Sri Mohd. Shafeeq Ahmad complying the hire purchase agreement and to deposit the entire pending amount. This notice is dated 07.04.1998, annexure 2 to the writ petition. Annexure 4 is the complaint made by the petitioner Company to the respondent no. 1 with a request that the instalments having been made in a connection which a criminal case has been filed by the petitioner Company. It is further contended that Sri Waris Khan along with his companions came to the Manager of the petitioner Company and entered in his chamber and abused and threatened to not to pay the loan and it is also said that the instalments from the purchase vehicle have got removed by him and vehicle has been transferred in the name of his brother Nanhe Khan. When an inspection there being was sought regarding file could not be traced in the office and no Officer had given any information regarding the matter whereas the complainant petitioner has never given Form 35 i.e. no dues certificate in favour of Sri Waris Khan and it was prayed that the file from the office of the Assistant Regional Officer, Ghazipur be traced and necessary action be taken. Annexure 5 is an application given by the petitioner Company with a request that neither as per the terms of the agreement of remaining instalments have been made nor the vehicle has been registered to the custody of the Company. On the other hand, by preparing forged Form 35, the name of the petitioner Company has been removed from the record of the office which is a clear violation of sub -section 5 of section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner is filing the copy of the hire purchase agreement and other related documents along with his application and it was requested that the name of the petitioner Company be registered and the applicant be given necessary certificate. Annexure 6 is notice under Section 55 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 given by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration). It is mentioned that a complaint has been received from the petitioner Company and the copy of the hire purchase statement of account along with other paper have been filed with it.;