JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 24.08.2002 involving Annexure-9 and further a request for issuing a mandamus directing opposite party No.2, the Regional Transport Officer, Sundergarh to cancel the ownership of the vehicle in question in favour of opposite party No. 4 and further directing the opposite party No.2 to restore the hypothecation in favour of the petitioner-company involving the vehicle in question by quashing the order dated 21.03.2001 involving Annexure-5. 2. Short background involved in this case and as appearing from the writ petition is that the petitioner, a non-banking financial company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of finance, hire-purchase, the financial lease operation dealing with all types of motor vehicles, plant and machineries as well as equipments also. In the process, the petitioner-company has financed the vehicle involved to one Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Choudhury of Sundergarh in the month of August, 1997 and the said vehicle is sunder hypothecation with the petitioner-company as required under Rule 60 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In the month of November, 2001 opposite party No.2, the Regional Transport Officer, Sundergarh vide letter No.4061 dated 13.11.2001 intimated the Branch Manager of the petitioner-company that the vehicle in question has been sold to Sri Ashok Kumar Patel and thus in the said letter the Regional Transport Officer, Sundergarh requested the petitioner-company to verify the records and to furnish the clearance certificate in Form No.35 to take a decision in the matter of change of ownership of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, on 17.11.2001 petitioner-company intimated the opposite party No.2-RTO, Sundergarh that dues of the loanee –Sanjeeb Kumar Choudhury have not been cleared and Shri Choudhury has also tried to get the ownership of the vehicle in question transferred by forging some documents before opposite party No.2 and as on the said date a sum of Rs.30,945/- was still outstanding against said Sanjeeb Kumar Choudhury and it is on this premises, the RTO, Sundergarh was intimated by the petitioner-company that Form No.35 cannot be issued and petitioner thereby also requested the R.T.O. not to effect the transfer of ownership of the vehicle without grant of “No Objection Certificate” under Form No.35. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner-company took re-possession of the vehicle on 19.05.2002 and intimated the fact of taking over the re-possession of the vehicle to the RTO, the opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-4. On 25.05.2002, in the meanwhile Ashok Kumar Patel produced Xerox copy of R.C. Book before the petitioner-company and claimed thereby that the vehicle involved has been purchased by him and, accordingly, the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred way back on 21.03.2001. After cancellation of hypothecation, particularly establishing his claim that appearing in the entry finds place at page-9 of the R.C. Book. On perusal of the R.C. Book the petitioner-company being shocked to find transfer of the vehicle without issuance of clearance certificate in Form No.35 and particularly when vide Annexure-2 there is already communication by the petitioner-company intimating its reason for not in a position to issue NOC and that too when the possessor of the vehicle was still in outstanding, finding no positive response from the opposite party No.2, the petitioner-company was constrained to move this Court by way of writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.5762 of 2002. This Court in disposal of the aforesaid writ petition finally without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case disposed of the writ petition with an observation that all the contesting parties shall appear before the R.T.O., Sundergarh on 06.07.2002 to receive further direction from the R.T.O. It is pursuant to the above order of this Court, petitioner-company filed a petition before the Opposite Party no.2 for restoring the hypothecation on the premises of registration being obtained without necessary compliance and based on decision behind back of the petitioner-company. It is here alleged that on the appearance of the parties before the R.T.O. Sundergarh on 20.07.2002, the R.T.O., Sundergarh instead of deciding on the merit of change of transfer of ownership of the vehicle insisted the petitioner-company to compromise the dispute in order to facilitate regularizing the illegal transfer of ownership which also clearly borne from the record of the R.T.O., Sundergarh dated 01.08.2002 appearing at Annexure-6. It is while the matter stood as such, petitioner-company received a letter from the opposite party No.2 wherein the petitioner-company was again asked to have a compromise of the dispute with a further direction that unless the parties resolve the issue, opposite party No.2 shall intimate this Court for initiation of the contempt proceeding for disobeying the order of this Court. Petitioner-company pursuant to receipt of above letter, appeared before R.T.O., Sundergarh once again bringing the whole history involving the case, requested opposite party No.2 for recalling its order dated 21.03.2002 and issuing a fresh registration certificate involving the vehicle in favour of the petitioner-company. Petitioner alleged that instead of deciding on the fate of its own order the opposite party No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner-company in its order dated 24.08.2002 vide Annexure-9. The R.T.O., Sundergarh even went to the extent by issuing an order on 26.08.2002 directing the petitioner-company for releasing the vehicle and enclosing therein a draft for the arrear dues available at Annexure-10. It is on the basis of the aforesaid direction of the opposite party No.2, opposite party No.3 appeared before the petitioner –company on 29.07.2002 and while begging excuse for the incident taken place in the meantime made a request to the petitioner-company for allowing it to repay the arrear dues in question and also for release of the vehicle under mortgage of the petitioner-company compelling the petitioner to write back to opposite party No.2 indicating therein that the R.T.O. by its such order has exceeded its jurisdiction. 3. It is on the above factual background, Shri J. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company taking recourse to the direction of this Court in the disposed of writ petition, submitted that for the direction involved therein, the R.T.O., Sundergarh, opposite party No.2 had the only authority to see as to whether its order for transfer of the ownership; was legal and valid. Taking this Court to the developments thereafter till the R.T.O. directing the petitioner-company to receive the arrear involved from the subsequent purchaser in order to regularize its illegal order, Shri Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company taking this Court to the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicle Act, particularly sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, submitted that there is clear violation of the above provision by the R.T.O., Sundergarh and further since the role of the R.T.O. was very much limited, there was no competency with the R.T.O. to direct the petitioner-company to receive the arrear amount to regularize the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question. It is in the above premises, Shri Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-company prayed this Court for interfering in the impugned action of the R.T.O. in Annexure-7 as well as Annexure-10 and setting aside the same. 4. Shri D. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the private opposite party No.4 on the other hand taking this Court to the developments taken through till the direction of the R.T.O., Sundergarh for accepting the differential arrear in order to regularise the direction for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question, contended that for opposite party No.4’s willingness and readiness to clear the arrear dues whatever shortfalls were there ought to have been shorted out and finding no cooperation of the financer, Shri Panda, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.4 alleged that the R.T.O., Sundergarh, opposite party No.2 had no other option than to issue necessary directions vide Annexures-7 and 10. It is in the above circumstances, Shri Panda, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No.4 prayed this Court not to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Shri B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Transport Authority referring to the direction of this Court in the disposed off writ petition and the developments taken place through various correspondences by the petitioner-company in the writ petition, attempted to justify the action of opposite party No.2, the R.T.O., Sundergarh and taking a queue from the readiness of opposite party No.4 for clearing the arrear outstanding, contended that there remain no infirmity in the direction of opposite party No.2 requiring this Court to interfere in the orders at Annexures-7 and 10. 6. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, avoiding unnecessary details, only taking into account the relevant documents and facts as necessary for adjudication of the issue involved, this Court finds, there is a transaction between the petitioner and the erstwhile owner of the vehicle to one Sanjeeb Kumar Choudhury of Sundergarh by the petitioner-company. There also remains no dispute that Sri Choudhury not only sold the vehicle while in hypothecation but based on the materials produced by opposite party No.4, the R.T.O. authority even went to the extent of change in the ownership. It is at this stage, taking into account the disposal of the earlier writ petition by this Court involving OJC No.5762 of 2002, this Court finds, this Court on the previous occasion while disposing the writ petition hereinabove vide its order dated 27.06.2002 made the following directions :- “3. 27.06.2002 : This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 27.05.2002 (Annexure-1) by which Sanjib Kumar Choudhury, opp. Party No.3 has been directed to appear before the R.T.O., Sundergarh to show cause as to why he filed a forged document Shri Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the R.T.O. has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding inasmuch as he cannot decide as to whether any party submitted forged document. Sri Pal appears for opp. Party No.2 who is said to be the financer from whom opp. Party No.3 had taken loan and purchased the vehicle. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we dispose of the writ petition by an observation that all the contesting parties will appear before the R.T.O., Sundergarh (opp. Party No.1) on 06,.07.2002 to receive further direction from him. The R.T.O. will hear all concerned and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.:” 7. Perusal of the direction of this Court, it appears, this Court while disposing the writ petition though declined to entertain the allegations of the petitioner therein, but however, with an intention for a decision of the issue by the R.T.O., Sundergarh, opposite party No.2. This Court only permitted both the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties therein to appear before the R.T.O., Sundergarh on 06.07.2002 to receive further direction from him. This Court even observed that the R.T.O. will hear all concerned and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. This Court only permitted both the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties therein to appear before the R.T.O., Sundergarh on 06.07.2002 to receive further direction from him. This Court even observed that the R.T.O. will hear all concerned and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Further scrutiny of the aforesaid order, this Court finds, this Court on the previous occasion refused to entertain the allegation and the counter revision therein and disposed the matter only leaving it for the decision of the competent authority, the R.T.O., Sundergarh and must be in accordance with law. It is at this stage, this Court finds admittedly the vehicle was under hypothecation at the time of transfer and for the admitted position involved herein that by the time of transfer of ownership by making necessary entries in the R.C. Book, it is was compulsory on the part of the R.T.O., Sundergarh to receive the Form No.35 which otherwise is a “No Objection” whereby the financier gives a certificate to the Road Transport Authority that there is in fact no outstanding, thereby obstructing the transfer of the ownership at the end of the R.T.O. It is at this stage, this Court also takes into consideration the information available through the impugned orders that the R.T.O., Sundergarh instead of adjudicating as to whether there was any outstanding at the relevant point of time entry with regard to transfer of ownership of the vehicle was entered in the R.C. Book, but what appears here is, the R.T.O. on misreading of the order of this Court and under the impression that this Court had directed the R.T.O. for settling the issue made all his attempts facilitating settling the issue. Question being involved whether a transfer of ownership of the vehicle is permissible in absence of Form No.35 or even in “No Objection Certificate” provided that there is no outstanding involving the vehicle ought to be transferred ? This Court for the contents in the impugned order and the other documents appended herein, finds, there is no denial to the fact by either of the parties that there was still outstanding resulting no scope for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” at any cost. This Court for the contents in the impugned order and the other documents appended herein, finds, there is no denial to the fact by either of the parties that there was still outstanding resulting no scope for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” at any cost. From the impugned orders, this Court also finds, a strange behaviour of the R.T.O., Sundergarh even going to the extent of threatening the financier, the petitioner herein, as clearly borne from Annexure-7, particularly in paragraph-3 therein to the extent that “if any party, i.e. Financer/Seller/Purchaser did not obey the order of the undersigned then he will be bound to send a report to the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa for initiation of contempt proceeding against him for disobedience of order”. This Court not only finds surprise in the behaviour of the R.T.O., Sundergarh working then, but such direction even goes wholly contrary to the direction of this Court involving O.J.C. No.5762 of 2002 wherein this Court only directed the R.T.O., Sundergarh to look into the legal aspect of the matter. In view of the provisions of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Act there is no scope for the Road Transport Authority to endorse transfer of ownership in absence of “No Objection Certificate” vide Form No.35 is being submitted by the financier. It is in the above circumstances, this Court finds, the direction contained in Annexure-7 remains wholly illegal and without competency. 8. Coming to deal with the direction contained in Annexure-10, it appears, for the observations herein and as this Court has already observed the endorsement of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle involved in absence of Form No.35 remain illegal, this Court finds, the R.T.O., Sundergarh had also no jurisdiction to issue the direction contained in Annexure-10. 8. Coming to deal with the direction contained in Annexure-10, it appears, for the observations herein and as this Court has already observed the endorsement of transfer of the ownership of the vehicle involved in absence of Form No.35 remain illegal, this Court finds, the R.T.O., Sundergarh had also no jurisdiction to issue the direction contained in Annexure-10. Further, from the direction of the R.T.O., Sundergarh herein, this Court also finds, the R.T.O. concerned passed the order in misutilization of its power involving the Motor Vehicles Act and since it had found the endorsement in the R.C. Book with regard to transfer of ownership of the vehicle was in absence of Form No.35 and in non-compliance of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 instead of directing the petitioner-company to receive the arrear amount from opposite party No.4, it should have recalled its order involving transfer of ownership of the vehicle involved and set the R.C. Book in order by restoration of the hypothecation involving the vehicle concerned. It is in the above circumstances, this Court interfering in both the directions at Annexure-7 as well as Annexure-10, this Court sets aside both the orders and looking to the prayer of the petitioner involving the application dated 07.07.2002 while setting aside the orders at Annexure-7 and 10, this Court also directs opposite party No.2 to cancel transfer of ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02G-4502 (Mahendra & Mahendra Commander Jeep) forthwith and issue a fresh R.C. Book in favour of the petitioner-company involving vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02G-4502 (Mahendra & Mahendra Commander Jeep) treating it to be a vehicle under hypothecation. 9. The writ petition succeeds, but however, no order as to costs. 10. While parting away from this judgment, this Court feels it proper to send a copy of this judgment to the Transport Secretary, Government of Odisha to issue necessary guidance to the Road Transport Authorities throughout the State to avoid such type of illegal orders/directions in future. 9. The writ petition succeeds, but however, no order as to costs. 10. While parting away from this judgment, this Court feels it proper to send a copy of this judgment to the Transport Secretary, Government of Odisha to issue necessary guidance to the Road Transport Authorities throughout the State to avoid such type of illegal orders/directions in future. The impugned action appears not only be illegal but without competency of the authority and either in complete misreading of the direction of this Court involving O.J.C. No.5762 of 2002 or in deliberate misuse of power with the R.T.O. A free copy of this Judgment be served on the learned Government Advocate for communication of the same to the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Odisha. Petition succeeds.