JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. We have heard Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Trupesh Kathiria, the learned AGP appearing for and on behalf of respondents - State. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 12.07.2019, by which the respondent Nos.3 and 4 – RTO authorities have refused to register the vehicles in question in the name of transferee - M/s. New Ruby Cargo Pvt. Ltd on the ground that there is an outstanding liability of tax penalty and interest on the said vehicles. 3. The facts in brief leading to present petition are as under: 3.1 The writ applicant is a Transporter and since 1998 he has been in the business of transport. The writ applicant is registered owner of 141 commercial trucks. Out of 141, the writ applicant intends to transfer the ownership of 39 trucks to his son, who is Director of M/s. New Ruby Cargo Pvt. Ltd. The writ applicant has submitted necessary prescribed forms within the time limits declaring the facts of transfer with necessary documents and also requested the authorities to record the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration. The writ applicant has also requested the authorities to renew the permit and issuance of fitness of certificate and cancellation of hypothecation. 3.2 It is the case of the writ applicant that despite repeated reminders, the respondents have not acted upon the application as well as the forms submitted by him in recording of transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration. The respondent authorities have refused to record the facts of transfer of ownership on the ground that there is an outstanding liability of tax on the vehicles in question. The writ applicant has paid 50% amount of arrears of tax to show his bonafide and also gave an undertaking to pay the remaining amount of tax after recording of transfer of ownership, as due to slowdown in the business, he could not be in a position to pay the full amount of tax, interest and penalty. The writ applicant has paid 50% amount of arrears of tax to show his bonafide and also gave an undertaking to pay the remaining amount of tax after recording of transfer of ownership, as due to slowdown in the business, he could not be in a position to pay the full amount of tax, interest and penalty. The respondent authorities vide communication dated 12.07.2019 informed the writ applicant that unless and until the arrears of tax will not honour, the recording of transfer of ownership as well as renewal of permit and fitness certificate cannot be processed. 3.3 In short, it is the case of the writ applicant that after transfer of 39 vehicles, the registering authority have refused to record the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration on account of arrears of tax of the vehicles in question. Hence, present petition is filed seeking quashing and setting aside the communication dated 12.07.2019 and directing the respondent authorities to record the transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question in the certificate of registration and also issued the necessary fitness certificate, renewal of the permit and cancellation of hypothecation as per the decision of the authority dated 8.10.2020. 4. Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the authorities having no discretion to refuse to record the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration on the ground that tax on the vehicles being not been paid by the registered owner. Referring to Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V. Act’) read with Rule 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1958 (for short, the M.V. Rules), he would submit that the provisions nowhere lays down that the registering authority can refuse to record the facts of transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration on account of arrears of tax on the vehicles. He would further submit that 50% of the tax amount has already been paid by writ applicant and also submitted an undertaking before the authority that he will pay the remaining amount after necessary entry made in the certificate of registration. He would further submit that the undertaking (at page- 493 dtd 13.2.2019) having been filed after considering Section 8(1) and (2) of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. 5. Mr. He would further submit that the undertaking (at page- 493 dtd 13.2.2019) having been filed after considering Section 8(1) and (2) of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. 5. Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned counsel would further submit that respondent authorities, without any authority of law, have refused to issue fitness certificate and renewal of the permit with regard to vehicles in question. He would further submits that the respondent authorities have also denied to cancel the hypothecation on the ground of unpaid tax on the motor vehicles. Referring to relevant provisions, as provided under the M.V. Act and Rules, Mr. Parth Bhatt would further submits that there is no any pre-condition to pay the arrears of motor vehicle tax and the authorities concerned could not have asked to pay the same. Therefore, in this circumstances, he prayed that necessary direction may also be issued upon the respondent authorities to record the transfer of ownership in the certificate of registration for the vehicles as mentioned at Annexure - A to this writ petition and further issued necessary directions to issue permit and necessary fitness certificate and remove the hypothecation in the registration of certificate. In support of aforesaid contentions, Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions : (i) Charu Chandra Biswas Vs. Registering Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Barasat, (1994) 1 Cal Lt 438 and (ii) Nanaiah Vs. The Regional Transport Officer, Coorg Region, Mercara, ( AIR 1978 Kar 106 ). 6. Mr. Trupesh Kathiria, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent State would submit that the respondent authorities have all the right to refuse to record the facts of transfer of ownership, as the writ applicant has failed to clear the arrears of tax on the vehicles. He would further submit that after payment of 50% of the tax of arrears amount, the writ applicant failed to pay remaining amount. Referring to Section 50(6) of the M.V. Act, Mr. Kathiria, the learned AGP would submit that the concerned authority has discretion to refuse to record the facts of transfer. Mr. Kathiria, the learned AGP would further submit that there is an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available under the M.V. Act for redressal of the dispute. In this circumstances, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be entertained. 7. Mr. Kathiria, the learned AGP would further submit that there is an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available under the M.V. Act for redressal of the dispute. In this circumstances, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be entertained. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the records, the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the respondent authorities can insist upon payment of arrears of tax as a precondition for recording transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the certificate of registration and for the issuance of necessary renewal of permit etc.? 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the respective parties, let us have a look into the relevant provisions of transfer of ownership provided in Section 50 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 55 of the M.V. Rules, which reads as under : “50. Transfer of ownership.— (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,— (a) the transferor shall,— (i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and (ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)— (A) the no objection certificate obtained under section 48; or (B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,— (C) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of section 48; or (II) the postal acknowledgment received by the transferee if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgment due to the registering authority referred to in section 48, together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to comply with any direction subject to which such certificate may be granted;” Rule 55 (1) and (2) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 reads as under : “1. Where the owner of a motor vehicle dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle may for a period of three months, use the vehicle as if it ha been transferred to him where such person has, within thirty days of the death of the owner informs the registering authority of the occurrence of the death of the owner and of his own intention to use the vehicle. 2. The person referred to in sub-rule (l) shall apply in Form 3l within the period of three months to the said registering authority for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name, accompanied by- (a) The appropriate fee as specified in rule 81; (b) The death certificate in relation to the registered owner; (c) The certificate of registration; and (d) The certificate of insurance.” 9. After examination of the legal provisions of Section 50 of the M.V. Act read with Rule 55 (1) and (2), as referred to above, which provides where the ownership of registered vehicle is transferred within the same State, in which the vehicle is registered, in that event, the transferor is required to send a report about fact of transfer within 14 days of the transfer to the concerned registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and also to send a copy of said report to the transferee. Rule 55 provides that where the ownership of motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the registering authority concerned and application in Form No. 30 shall also be made by the transferee with necessary documents like certificate of registration, certificate of inspection and appropriate fees as stipulated in Rule 81 of the Rules. 10. We take the notice of the fact that, in the instant case the writ applicant and transferee of the vehicles have submitted prescribed forms within statutory limitation as provided under Section 50 read with Rule 55 with regard to 39 vehicles as mentioned in Annexure-A of the writ application. We are of the view that after receipt of an application of transfer, Registering Authority has to verify as to whether the requirement of relevant provisions have been complied with or not. We are of the view that after receipt of an application of transfer, Registering Authority has to verify as to whether the requirement of relevant provisions have been complied with or not. Section 56 of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides that on receipt of the report under Section 50 read with Rule 55, the Registering Authority may cause the transfer of ownership to be entered in the certificate of registration. Therefore, the discretion to the authority is only with the limited investigation with regard to vehicles in question and compliance with the aforesaid provisions and rules thereunder. The statutory provisions as referred above, does not give any authority to demand arrears of motor vehicle tax as a precondition before acting upon the request for transferring of ownership. 11. The second contention raised by Mr. Parth Bhatt, the learned counsel for the writ applicant is that the respondent authorities have refused to renew the fitness certificate, permit of the vehicles and refuse to cancel the entry of hypothecation of the vehicles on the ground that there is an arrears of motor vehicle tax with regard to vehicles in question. 12. Section 51(3) of the Act, 1988 read with Rule 61 of the Rules, 1989, provides for the cancellation of hypothecation, which read as under: Section 51(3) : Any entry made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may be cancelled by the 1[last registering authority] on proof of the termination of the said agreement by the parties concerned on an application being made in such form as the Central Government may prescribe 2[and an intimation in this behalf shall be sent to the original registering authority if the last registering authority is not the original registering authority]. Rule 61 : Termination of hire-purchase agreements, etc. (1) An application for making an entry of termination of agreement of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation referred to in sub-section (3) of section 51 shall be made in Form 35 duly signed by the registered owner of the vehicle and the financier, and shall be accompanied by the certificate of registration and the appropriate fee as specified in rule 81. (2) The application for the issue of a fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) of section 51 shall be made in Form 36 and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in rule 81. (2) The application for the issue of a fresh certificate of registration under sub-section (5) of section 51 shall be made in Form 36 and shall be accompanied by a fee as specified in rule 81. (3) Where the registered owner has refused to deliver the certificate of registration to the financier or has absconded then the registering authority shall issue a notice to the registered owner of the vehicle in Form 37. The provisions as referred to above indicates that the application for cancellation of hypothecation shall be made in Form No. 35 duly signed by registered owner of the vehicle and financier with necessary documents as referred in the rules. The provision nowhere states that if any tax due on the vehicle, the authority should not act upon the request of cancellation of hypothecation made in the certificate of registration. Only requirement is to comply the mandatory provision by filing necessary forms etc. along with the necessary documents and fees. 13. Section 81 of the M.V. Act, 1988, provides for the renewal of permit, which reads as under : Section 81 : Duration and renewal of permits. — (1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of section 88 shall be effective [from the date of issuance or renewal thereof] for a period of five years: Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section 88, such counter-signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. (2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. (4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely:— (a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application; (b) the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely:— (i) plying any vehicle— (1) without payment of tax due on such vehicle; (2) without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle; (3) on any unauthorised route; (ii) making unauthorised trips: Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account: Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant. (5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.” 14. Rule 62 of the Rules, 1989 and Rule 50(2) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 provides for the renewal of certificate of fitness of the vehicles, which read as under: Rule 62: “Section 62. Rule 62 of the Rules, 1989 and Rule 50(2) of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 provides for the renewal of certificate of fitness of the vehicles, which read as under: Rule 62: “Section 62. Validity of certificate of fitness- (1) A certificate of fitness in respect of a transport vehicle granted under section 56 shall be in Form 38 and such certificate when granted or renewed shall be valid for the period as indicated below:— (a) new transport vehicle two years (b) renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of transport vehicles Two years for vehicles upto eight years old and one year for vehicles older than eight years (ba) renewal of certificate of fitness in respect of E-rickshaw and E-card three years C …... D ….. Provided that the renewal of a fitness certificate shall be made only [after an [inspecting officer] or authorized testing stations as referred to in sub-section (1) of section 56 of the Act] has carried the tests specified in the table......” Rule 50(2): An application for the issue or renewal of certificate of fitness shall be made in Form C.F.A to the Inspector of Motor Vehicles or the authorized testing station, in whose jurisdiction the vehicle is normally kept, and shall be accompanied by the fees prescribed under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.” After conjoint reading of both the rules, it appears that after issuance of certificate under Section 56 of the Act at the time of registration of the vehicle under Section 56 of the Act for the time period as provided under Rule 62 and renewal thereof should be made in Form No. C.F.A. to the Inspector of Motor Vehicle or Authorize Testing Station as provided under Rule 62. Therefore, the aforesaid rules, nowhere states that if any tax is due on the vehicle or unpaid by the owner, the authority cannot proceed further for renewal of the fitness certificate. The requirement on the part of the owner is to follow the mandatory provisions of the rules for the purpose of renewal of the fitness certificate as provided hereinabove. 15. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions, we hold that, the authority concerned have no statutory powers to demand arrears of tax on vehicles as a precondition for recording of facts of transfer of vehicles in the certificate of registration. 15. In view of the aforesaid legal provisions, we hold that, the authority concerned have no statutory powers to demand arrears of tax on vehicles as a precondition for recording of facts of transfer of vehicles in the certificate of registration. Even they cannot insist for advance payment of arrears of tax to process the request of cancellation of hypothecation, renewal of fitness certificate and permit of the vehicle. In the instant case, the respondent authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duties while considering the request made by the writ applicant and the action on the part of the respondent authorities are contrary to the mandatory provisions as referred to above and cannot sustain in eye of law. 16. The learned AGP has expressed his apprehension that if transfer of the vehicles is effected then, it will be difficult for the department to recover the arrears of tax on the vehicles. 17. We do not agree with the submission made by learned AGP. It is required to be noted that the recovery of tax due on the vehicles, is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. We have examined the legal provisions with regard to the liability to pay arrears of tax and the procedure to recover such tax and the powers of the authorities to seize and detain the motor vehicle for non-payment of tax, as provided under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. 18. On examination of the scheme of the Act 1958, it appears that the liability to pay tax in respect of motor vehicles is cast upon two persons, one being the registered owner and other, the person, who is having possession or control of the vehicles in question. 18. On examination of the scheme of the Act 1958, it appears that the liability to pay tax in respect of motor vehicles is cast upon two persons, one being the registered owner and other, the person, who is having possession or control of the vehicles in question. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that if the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before having paid the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall also be liable to pay the arrears of tax to the authority and Section 8(1) and (2) of the Act provide that even after transferring the ownership, the transferor is liable for the said amount. 19. Section 12 of the Act, 1958 provides that any tax due and not paid as provided, be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue. Section 12 A of the said Act, puts restriction of use of motor vehicle to ply on the road, where the tax payable in respect of such motor vehicle remains unpaid. It is pertinent to note that Section 12B of the said Act empowers the authorities to seize and detain the vehicle until the tax, penalty and interest is paid. Therefore, even after recording of facts of transfer in the certificate of registration, the interest of State is not affected, so far arrears of tax is concerned, as the provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958, as referred to above, is comprehensive and authorities may take necessary action as provided under the Act. 20. We take notice of the fact that in the instant case, the writ applicant and his son, have submitted an undertaking before the authority (page-493) stating interalia the fact that after completion of the process of transfer, as provided under Section 50 of the Act, they will pay the requisite amount of tax & discharge all other liability. 21. 20. We take notice of the fact that in the instant case, the writ applicant and his son, have submitted an undertaking before the authority (page-493) stating interalia the fact that after completion of the process of transfer, as provided under Section 50 of the Act, they will pay the requisite amount of tax & discharge all other liability. 21. In view of the legal provision with regard to arrears of tax on the vehicles and considering the undertaking submitted by the writ applicant before the authorities as referred to above, if writ applicant or transferee fail to discharge their burden to pay the unpaid tax, then, the authorities have power to recover the same as an arrears of land revenue and also can seize and detain the motor vehicle until the tax of the vehicle is paid. 22. Now, let us deal with the contention raised by the learned AGP Mr. Kathiria with regard to availability of efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal to the writ applicant. We take notice of the fact that respondent authorities could not have demanded the arrears of tax on vehicles as a precondition before act upon the request of transfer of vehicles, as statutory provision does not give power or authority to the authority concerned for the same. Therefore, considering that neat question of law is involved in the present case, we should not relegate the present writ applicant to avail or exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal and reject the present writ application on such ground only. 23. We have been informed that the writ applicant has applied for transfer of ownership of 39 vehicles as mentioned in Annexure – A to this writ application. Out of the said 39 vehicles, there is no hypothecation on 9 vehicles and for the remaining 30 vehicles, the writ applicant has submitted the 'No Objection Certificate' from the respective financial institutions from whom the loan was taken for deletion of lien/hypothecation on the said vehicles and the same is pending with the respondent authorities on account of non-payment of outstanding motor vehicle tax liability. 24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering the relevant provisions of law, we hold that the impugned communication dated 12.07.2019 is contrary to provisions of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 25. 24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering the relevant provisions of law, we hold that the impugned communication dated 12.07.2019 is contrary to provisions of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 25. The respondents are accordingly directed to record the fact of transfer of ownership of the vehicles in question in favour of the writ applicant under section 50(6) read with Rule 55(1) and (2) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and return the certificate of registration to the writ applicant after recording the transfer therein along with the other documents within four weeks from the date of communication of this order subject to cancellation of hypothecation of 30 vehicles, for which, the application along with 'No Objection Certificate' have been submitted by the writ applicant and accordingly, the authorities are directed to process the same within time stipulated as above. 26. We further clarify that for the recovery of unpaid motor vehicles tax on the vehicles in question, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law more particularly as provided under Gujarat Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958 and Rules thereunder. 27. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order is to costs.