JUDGMENT : Rajesh Mazumdar, J. Heard Mr R Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms M D Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel, Transport Department; Mr N Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam; and Mr P R Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 3, whereby the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-28-AC 0744, has been flagged as “Not to be transacted” by referring to a Police case under Section 154 CrPC etc., and also based on a complaint by the respondent No. 5. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was the owner of the aforesaid vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-28- AC 0744 and on his demise, she had applied to the concerned District Transport Office for registering the transfer of ownership from the deceased husband to the petitioner herein. However, when the transfer did not materialise and on enquiry being made , the petitioner came to know that the concerned authority had flagged the vehicle as not to be transacted. 3. Mr R Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there are only certain circumstances under which, a vehicle can be flagged as not to be transacted and the said conditions are reflected in the communication dated 3rd of April, 2023, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. By drawing the attention of this Court to the Serial No. 9 of the categories for flagging of vehicles as not to be transacted on Vahan, the learned counsel submits that it is only in cases where the legal heirs file a complaint on the demise of the owner of the vehicle, that a vehicle can be flagged as – ‘not to be transacted’. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no order from any appropriate forum of law restraining transfer of the vehicle from the name of the deceased owner to the legal heirs, and in any case, a vehicle cannot stand in the name of a deceased person, where his legal heirs apply for transfer of ownership. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no order from any appropriate forum of law restraining transfer of the vehicle from the name of the deceased owner to the legal heirs, and in any case, a vehicle cannot stand in the name of a deceased person, where his legal heirs apply for transfer of ownership. He, accordingly prays that the respondents be directed to remove the ‘not to be transacted’ flag against the said vehicle and further, to process the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle to the legal heirs of the deceased owner in accordance with law. 4. Mr P R Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that the writ petition does not deserve any consideration from this Court since the petitioner has been taking varying stands and the bona fide behind the writ petition cannot be pre-supposed. The learned counsel has submitted that although in the writ petition, a stand has been taken that unless a vehicle is a case property or under investigation and formal request is made by the IO in writing to keep the file in safe custody or not to make any transaction, the transfer of the vehicle cannot be stalled, while addressing the Court, the another ground has been taken that the flagging cannot be done, unless the legal heirs make a complaint. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition, to which he says no reply has yet been filed, that the petitioner is aware that a cheque issued by her deceased husband had remained dishonoured and that respondent No. 5 was entitled to recover the same from the estate of the deceased, which would also include the vehicle in question. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that legal notices had been served upon the petitioner, to which they had also replied which facts have not been referred to in the writ petition, and, therefore, he submits that there is suppression of material facts, requiring dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that legal notices had been served upon the petitioner, to which they had also replied which facts have not been referred to in the writ petition, and, therefore, he submits that there is suppression of material facts, requiring dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 also submits that the petitioners are well aware that a money suit being Money Suit No. 93 of 2024, instituted by the respondent No. 5, is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, and yet petitioner has refrained from participating in the said money suit and the respondent No. 5 has not been able to serve notices on the petitioner, who is the defendant therein. He, therefore, submits that this writ petition is not filed bona fide and does not deserve to be entertained by this Court. He further submits that the next date for the money suit is fixed on 10th of February, 2026. 6. Ms M D Borah, learned counsel appearing for the Transport Department has submitted on the basis of instructions that it is a fact that upon submission of an application on 29.02.2024 by the respondent No. 5, along with a copy of an FIR lodged before the Paltanbazar Police Station, the respondent No. 3 had flagged the same vehicle as-‘not to be transacted’, to avoid any irregularity in respect of the ownership transfer. Ms Borah has submitted that the Department does not have any information about the deceased owner taking any financial help from the respondent No. 5 at the time of purchasing the vehicle, and in fact, from the records it is reflected that the vehicle was hypothecated to the Indus Bank without any reference to the name of the respondent No. 5 herein. The learned counsel appearing for the Transport Department also submits that unless the petitioner fulfills the mandates as required under Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, consideration of any application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle cannot and does not arise. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and also gone through the records of the case. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and also gone through the records of the case. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities or the respondent No. 5 have not been able to bring any provision of law to the notice of this Court that a vehicle can be flagged as- ‘not to be transacted’ in the absence of fulfilling the conditions laid down in the Circular dated 3rd of April, 2023, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, or in the absence of any restraint order being issued by an appropriate forum of law. 8. In the absence of any such restraint in law being present, this Court is of the considered opinion that the act of the respondents in flagging the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-28-AC 0744, as a vehicle not to be transacted, was not done in accordance with law, and, therefore, the same requires for the interference of this Court. The same is accordingly interfered with and the respondents are directed to remove the said flag in connection with the vehicle in question. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not decided the title or entitlement of the petitioner to claim transfer of ownership, without filing an appropriate application as required under law to the concerned authorities. It is provided that in case, any application is filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law. It is also provided that this Court has not dealt with the rights of the respondent No. 5 in any manner with regard to the claims made in the money suit and the same shall proceed in accordance with law, without any reference to the present adjudication. Since the pendency of the money suit has been brought to the notice of the petitioner during this litigation, the petitioner may take appropriate steps, as advised. 9. The instructions placed by Ms M D Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department, are kept on record and marked as –‘X’ and ‘Y’, respectively. 10. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs.