BISWANATH SOMADDER,J. - (1.) The only question that falls for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is whether the petitioner - who claims to be a leaseholder of a registered vehicle (Bus) which operates on an Inter -State route between Kolkata (Hastings) and Chatra (Jharkhand) - can get benefit from the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of HDFC Bank Limited vs. Reshma & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 679 with regard to its interpretation of the statutory definition "owner" as stated in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(2.) In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the vehicle -in - question, being vehicle no. WB -15A -3920, is registered in the name of one Jiwan Gope. Jiwan Gope entered into a lease agreement with the writ petitioner on 20th June, 2016, for a period of five years to enable the writ petitioner (being the lessee), to ply the vehicle -in -question in the Inter - State route as described hereinbefore. Based on such lease agreement, the petitioner approached the concerned authority, namely, the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, for renewal of the permanent stage carriage permit for the purpose of plying the same vehicle in the Inter - State route.
(3.) According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the concerned authority has withheld the application for renewal of permit on the ground that the existing vehicle -in -question was procured by the writ petitioner by way of a lease agreement and the petitioner is not the lawful registered owner of the existing vehicle. It is in such context that the learned advocate for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of HDFC Bank Limited vs. Reshma & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 SCC 679 (paragraph 8) with regard to its interpretation of the statutory definition "owner", as stated in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.;