- (1.) The short common point involved in this batch of applications is that the petitioners are all holders of/or applicants for permits and/or renewal of permits to ply motorised carriages under The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the MV Act or the 1988 Act). The petitioners unanimously complain of the fact that at the time of application for, or renewal of their permits, before the respective Regional Transport Authorities (for short RTAs) or the State Transport Authority (for short STA), such authorities are insisting upon recording the names of the persons/firms so applying in the registration certificate.
(2.) The petitioners argue that under Section 2(30) of the MV Act any person in possession of a vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner. Alternatively, Section 2(30) of the MV Act provides that an owner is the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered as also, in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the owner, being a person in possession of such a vehicle under such agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation.
(3.) The petitioners argue in one voice that vide the impugned communication of the respective RTAs and the STAs any vehicle taken on hire by way of any agreement of rent or lease faces a disqualification to be registered as an owner within the meaning of Section 2(30) of the MV Act. The common issue therefore arises in this batch of writ petitions as to whether the grant of a permit or renewal of a permit or replacement of a vehicle against an existing permit which has been taken possession of by permit holders/operators from the registered owner on the basis of a separate hire/rental/lease agreement must be held to be acceptable or not by the RTAs/STA for granting a new permit or renewal the permit or placing a new vehicle under the permit without insisting on recording such rental/hire/lease agreement in the Certificate of Registration. The petitioners, on the strength of several judgments of this Hon'ble Court In Re: Somnath Sinha vs. State of West Bengal, 1995 2 CalLJ 409 ; unreported judgment dated 24th April, 2012 in WP 8327(W) of 2012 In Re: Deb Kumar Maity vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.; unreported judgment dated 17th May, 2011 in WP 6357(W) of 2011 In Re: Debashis Ganguly vs. State of West Bengal; and unreported judgment in WP 2465(W) of 2014 dated 3rd September, 2014 In Re: Manojit Basak vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., argue that it is now settled through several judicial authorities that a registered owner will be treated to be one whose vehicle stands registered by way of lease/hypothecation/hire purchase as distinctly provided under Section 2(30) of the MV Act. The petitioners further argue that such class of agreements by way of hire purchase/lease/hypothecation is also contemplated under Section 51 of the MV Act and only in cases of such agreements the RTAs/STA shall be entitled to insist upon entering the particulars with regard to ownership of the vehicle on the registration certificate. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners strongly argue that under Section 51 of the MV Act the word 'transfer' cannot be equated with any other agreement apart from the provisions of Section 2 (30) of the MV Act on account of lease/hire purchase/hypothecation, whereof the requirement of Section 51, sub- clauses 1 and 2, is attracted for endorsing such hire purchase/hypothecation/ lease agreement in the registration certificate. However, in respect of all other classes of rental or lease agreements there is no such requirement as provided under Section 2(30) and Section 51 of the MV Act. Therefore, the RTAs/STA cannot insist that entries with regard to such vehicles be compulsorily incorporated in the registration certificates.;