Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) Both the above noted writ petitions lay claim to a decision on an analogous point and therefore, were heard conjointly. Having regard to the point involved, they are being decided by this common judgement.
(2.) The Eastern Tyre Corporation, a business organisation, is the writ petitioner in WP 4462 (W) of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as WP I) and Mr. Aditya Khemka, an individual, the writ petitioner in WP 7678 (W) of 2019 (hereinafter referred to as WP II), were owners of their respective Motor Vehicles (MVs). Their respective MVs were sold and transferred by them in favour of the respective private respondents in the two writ petitions, being the transferees. The procedure for transfer of ownership and sale of the MVs was in accordance with law, i.e. in the manner provided by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act), as amended, read with its Rules.
(3.) Mr. Shraff and Ms. Dhar, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in WP I and WP II respectively, have argued that for the purpose of effecting the transfer both Forms 29 and 30 were jointly executed by the parties. It is submitted that with the execution of Forms 29 and 30, the modalities of transfer of the MVs, inter se the parties, stood effectively concluded. It is pointed out that the onus now lay with the transferees, i.e. the private respondents, to deposit the said Forms 29 and 30 before the Registering Authority/the Public Vehicles Department (for short PVD) of their jurisdiction and choice. The choice of the PVD could be exercised by the transferee based on either the place of his residence or, the place from where he carried on his business/work.;