Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 665 (CAL)

Rabindra Nath Roy v. State of West Bengal

2016-08-23

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2016
JUDGMENT : 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 v. 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 v. 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. 4. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State has referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore & Anr. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 541 . He has specifically referred to paragraphs 28.1 and 28.2 of the said judgment. 5. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 541 . He has specifically referred to paragraphs 28.1 and 28.2 of the said judgment. 5. In the present case, this Court is concerned with the present status of the writ petitioner, who, admittedly, is a leaseholder in respect of a vehicle registered in the name of Jiwan Gope. The Supreme Court in HDFC Bank Limited (supra) has elaborately defined the word "owner" as stated in section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2(30) of the said Act reads as follows: "2(30). 'owner' means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and 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 person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." 6. It is evident from the statutory definition of the term "owner" that it also includes a person in possession of a vehicle covered under an agreement of lease. The Supreme Court, in Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited (supra) in paragraph 28.1 has stated as follows: "28.1. Section 2(30) is a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of the lessee only for the purpose of the MV Act. It defines ownership for the subsequent provisions of the MV Act, not for the purpose of law in general. It serves more as a guide to what the terms in the MV Act mean. Therefore, if the MV Act at any point uses the term "owner" in any section, it means the one in whose name the vehicle is registered and in the case of a lease agreement, the lessee. That is all. It is not a statement of law on ownership in general. Perhaps, the repository of a general statement of law on ownership may be the Sale of Goods Act;" 7. The above observation of the Supreme Court is followed by a further observation in paragraph 28.2 of its judgment to the effect that section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 must be read in consonance with sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A clear observation made thereafter by the Supreme Court is as follows: "... A clear observation made thereafter by the Supreme Court is as follows: "... Therefore, the MV Act mandates that during the period of lease, the vehicle be registered, in the certificate of registration, in the name of the lessee and, on conclusion of the lease period, the vehicle be registered in the name of the lessor as owner. The section leaves no choice to the lessor but to allow the vehicle to be registered in the name of the lessee. ..." 8. The law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Limited (supra), leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that in the facts of the instant case, Jiwan Gope, being the lessor, has no choice but to allow the vehicle-in-question to be registered in the name of the lessee. However, without the vehicle being registered in the name of the lessee (i.e., the writ petitioner herein), the application for renewal of the permanent stage carriage permit in favour of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. 9. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with a direction upon the concerned registering authority to take steps to register the vehicle-in-question (WB-15A-3920) in the name of the lessee, subject to payment of all necessary fees and charges, for the period as stated in the lease agreement, once the writ petitioner together with the lessor (namely, the registered owner, Jiwan Gope) approaches the said authority for such purpose. The entire exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed by the concerned registering authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, but not later than four weeks from the date of the writ petitioner as well as the lessor approaching the said authority in terms of this order. Once the process of registration of ownership in favour of the writ petitioner - as a lessee - is completed, the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, shall take steps to process the renewal application of the petitioner's permanent stage carriage permit in accordance with law. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.