JUDGMENT Hon’ble Jayashree Tiwari, J.—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 27.4.1998 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 27.4.1998, 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 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 15.6.2001, an order purporting to have been passed by respondent No. 1 on 28.4.2001 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 18.6.2001. 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. 4. 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 7.4.1998, 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 alongwith 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 alongwith 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 alongwith other paper have been filed with it. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Company is that Form 35 has been prepared forgedfully, without paying remaining instalments. The name of the petitioner Company has been removed from the record of the office. This notice was issued by the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer. The affidavit given by Sri Mukesh Bansal, is annexure 7 narrating all the facts in detail. Annexure 8 is the copy of the complaint made before Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. Annexure 9 is the order passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) Ghazipur, whereby he has held that no case has been made out for cancelling the registration and no case for interference before in cutting the fact of being financed is made out. The Competent Authority has mentioned that after examination of all the facts, these points come in light that there was a compromise dated April, 1993 whereby there is instalment of Rs. The Competent Authority has mentioned that after examination of all the facts, these points come in light that there was a compromise dated April, 1993 whereby there is instalment of Rs. 4,62,400.00 had to be repaid and the financer had in the affidavit, had stated that the amount to be repaid is very excessive. It is also stated that vehicle owner Sri Waris Khan served the entire price of the vehicle. From the view taken by the vehicle owner, it appears that he has been depositing the money in the finances Company from time to time. That no prayer for confiscating the vehicle was adopted in between 1993 to 1998 when the regular payments were not made. The finances Company has not given any information regarding non payment of the instalments to the office and according to the law under Section 51 (3) on the appropriate Form 35 on the basis of the sign of the financing Company as well as the vehicle owner alongwith the same, the name of the Financer was removed and this information was given by the registered post on 27.4.1998. According to the vehicle owner and financing Company, the case is pending in the Court between the parties. Notice under Section 55 (5) dated 30.12.2000 was sent once and not again. This does not come within the purview of Section 55 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the vehicle owner has got removed the name of the Officer by way of forged signature, the Financer can initiate legal proceeding against him and on the ground of these points, he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Section 55 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides : “If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration.” 6. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions the manner in which the concerned authority has disposed of the complaint of the petitioner company does not appear to be in consonance with the reason and he has no authority to state that the petitioner company can lodge legal action against the vehicle owner. So the order passed on the complaint of the petitioner company is not appropriate nor in consonance with law. Accordingly, it is liable to be quashed as such. The order dated 28.4.2001 passed by Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) Ghazipur/Registering Authority is quashed. It is directed that respondent No. 3 Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) shall re-hear the petitioner on his complaint and pass a reasonable and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. ————