St vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5629 Cal

17 09.11.2021
Sc
                                  W.P.A. 16302 OF 2021
                                      ----------------------

(Through Video Conference) ,

Arjun Palit St Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

,,

Mr. Biswapriya Samanta ..... For the petitioner Mr. Amal Kumar Sen Mr. Jaladhi Das.

.... For the State

Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court, be kept with the

record.

This is an application under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is

aggrieved by an order dated September 22, 2021 passed

by the A.R.T.O. Bishnupur, rejecting the issuance of

Trade Certificate to the petitioner on the ground that the

petitioner is not bona fide dealer as per Rule 35(1) of the

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereafter referred to

as the Rules).

It is to be noted that this is a second round of

litigation and on the earlier occasion, by an order dated

August 17, 2021, this Court had directed the officer

concerned to pass a reasoned order. The said reasoned

order is now being assailed before this Court in this writ

petition.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that a bona fide agreement dated February 18,

2019 exists between Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and the

petitioner for Associate Dealer for a period of five years.

The petitioner submits that the rejection of issuance of

Trade Certificate is without any basis in law and based on

illegal reasons. He submits that the fact that a bona fide

agreement exists between the original equipment

manufacturer and the petitioner is sufficient for issuance

of Trade Certificate and no other document can be sought

for by the department. The petitioner relies on a judgment

of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WP (C) No.

13689 of 2019 (I) [Biju K. K., Karthika Bhavan,

Karukachal, Kottayam -vs.- The Transport

Commissioner, Trans Towers, Vazhuthacaud,

Thycaud] to buttress his argument.

Mr. Sen, counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent authority fairly submits that there is no

specific definition for a bona fide dealer in the Rules. He

further submits that Trade Certificate is normally sought

for by the certificate issuing authority from the original

equipment manufacturer to remove all doubts.

I have heard counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the materials on record. Upon

perusal of the documents it is clear that a bona fide

agreement exists between the petitioner and the original

equipment manufacturer and the same has been placed

on record before this Court.

In light of the same, the insistence of the

department on a "bona fide dealer" certificate from the

authority is without any basis in law. The very fact that a

proper legal agreement that has been provided may be

sufficient for issuance of Trade Certificate.

In light of the above reasons, the impugned order is

quashed and set aside and the authority concerned is

directed to issue Trade Certificate to the petitioner within

a period of four weeks from date.

With the above direction, the writ petition is

disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

necessary formalities.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)