PARKASH CHAND MEHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Jan. 23, 1982 the petitioner made an application to the Registering Authority, Ghurnarwin, District Bilaspur (respondent No. 2), stating that he had purchased truck No. HPB-1085 from respondent No. 4 and that full payment of the consideration for the vehicle to the extent payable to the said respondent was duly made and praying that the vehicle be transferred in the petitioner's name. An affidavit of respondent No.4, which accompanied the application, was duly sworn on Jan. 13, 1982 before the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur Districts and it bears his signature in English. The affidavit affirmed that the vehicle in question was sold by respondent No. 4 to the petitioner on Jan. 13, 1982, that the sale price agreed upon by and between the parties was Rs.1,34,000/-, that a sum of Rs.44,000/- was received by respondent No. 4 towards the sale price, that the balance amount of Rs. 90,000/- was payable to the United Commercial Bank, Beri, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, towards the repayment of loan of Rs.90,000/- secured by respondent No.4 against the vehicle and that the petitioner had accepted the liability of repayment of the said loan. Respondent No. 4 affirmed that he had no objection to the vehicle being transferred in the name of the petitioner. A copy of the affidavit is to be found at Annexure-A. The record of the second respondent was also made available for our inspection and the contents of the affidavit hereinabove set out are taken from the original affidavit which is found on the said record. The application appears to have been processed and granted on the same day, that is, Jan. 23, 1982 and the transfer of ownership appears to have been ordered to be entered in the name of the petitioner in the certificate of registration by respondent No.2. According to the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the present proceedings, the necessary entry in the registration certificate was, however, not immediately made.

(2.) On March 12, 1982, the Manager, United Commercial Bank, Beri (respondent No.3), addressed a letter, Annexure-R-2/A, to respondent No.2 pointing out that the vehicle in question was financed by the Bank by granting a loan of Rs.95,000/- to respondent No. 4 and that since there were arrears of instalments,"the tax-token" might not be renewed and that the vehicle might be registered in the name of the Bank. On March 15, 1982 a notice, Annexure-B, was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 to show cause why action in accordance with law and rules should not be taken because the vehicle was hypothecated with the United Commercial Bank, Beri, and its transfer was"against the terms and conditions of the hypothecation". The petitioner does not appear to have sent any reply to the show cause notice. However, on March 18, 1982, he made an application to respondent No.2 requesting that an entry regarding the hire-purchase agreement in respect of the vehicle in question, which had been financed by the United Commercial Bank, Beri, be made in the registration certificate. On August 20, 1982, respondent No.2 passed an order, Annexure-D, cancelling with immediate effect the order relating to the transfer of the vehicle made on Jan. 23 1982 on the ground that the Manager, United Commercial Bank, Beri, had objected to the transfer"owing to huge amount in arrear of the loan granted against aforesaid vehicle to Shri Hoshiar Singh and the present owner was given enough time to settle the matter with the Bank concerned" and"the present owner failed to clear the outstanding amount as per assurance given to this office" and for that reason"the transfer of the aforesaid vehicle is prejudicial to the Bank's interests". Be it stated that Hoshiar Singh is respondent No.4 herein and that"the present owner" referred to in the extracted portion is the petitioner.

(3.) By an order passed within four days thereafter, that is, on August 24, 1982, by respondent No.2, Annexure-C, the order dated August 20, 1982, Annexure-D, was superseded and the order relating to the transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner made on Jan. 23, 1982, was restored"keeping in view the facts placed before the undersigned by the parties concerned". A copy of the order appears to have been forwarded to respondent No.3 with an endorsement that"matter was discussed in length with your representative and Sh. Parkash Chand Mehta has bound himself for the payment of balance of loan and interest payable to the Bank". It would thus appear that the order, Annexure-C, was passed after the matter pertaining to the repayment of the dues of the United Commercial Bank was discussed with a representative of the said Bank and after the petitioner undertook to repay the balance of the dues together with interest. Against the aforesaid order, Annexure-C, respondent No. 4 Preferred an appeal under S.35 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. By an order made on July 11, 1983 by the Appellate Authority, Annexure-E, the operation of the order dated August 24,1982, Annexure-C, was stayed and the order dated Aug. 20, 1982, Annexure-D, was ordered to remain operative till further orders. Consequentially, the order cancelling the direction relating to the transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner revived once again. According to the petitioner, the appeal has since been dismissed.