M/S. R.K.D.S. & Associates And ... vs The Registering Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 3588 Cal

                        In the High Court at Calcutta
                       Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                Appellate Side

The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya



                             W.P.A. No. 8027 of 2022

                 M/s. R.K.D.S. & Associates and another
                                   Vs.
     The Registering Authority, Public Vehicle Department and others

       For the petitioners            :     Mr. Vinay Kr. Shraff,
                                            Miss. Priya Sarah Paul,
                                            Mr. Kaushal Agarwal

       For the State                  :     Mr. Pantu Deb Roy,
                                            Mr. Srijan Nayak,
                                            Mrs. Rituparna Maitra,
                                            Mr. Pannalal Bandopadhyay


       Hearing concluded on           :     20.06.2022

       Judgment on                    :     27.06.2022



       Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-



1.     The petitioner no.1-firm changed its name from M/s. R.K. Duggar

       and Co. to M/s. R.K.D.S. and Associates on June 3, 2013. However,

       when the petitioner no.1-partnership firm applied for necessary

       consequential changes in respect of a vehicle owned by the

       petitioners, the respondent-authorities claimed a huge sum of money,

equivalent to the fees payable in cases of transfer of ownership of

vehicle, for effecting such change of name.

2. The petitioners moved a writ petition bearing WPA 5525 of 2021

which was disposed of on March 14, 2022 by a co-ordinate Bench,

recording that the facts did not indicate the change of ownership but

merely the change of name and directing the registering authority

(respondent no.1) to consider and dispose of the representation dated

June 27, 2019 made by the petitioners by way of a reasoned order in

accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and after hearing

all necessary parties including the petitioners within two weeks from

that date.

3. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, the

Registering Authority, Kolkata passed an order upon re-visiting the

matter, proceeding on the basis of that the System VAAHAN 4

requires all the changes of ownership details including 'in-succession'

cases of any vehicle done through 'TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP' flow

of work and requires requisite forms and prescribed government fees

to initiate the process. The date of effect of such transfer or change of

ownership was to be reckoned as per the System (VAAHAN 4) 'the

date of sale or transfer' as has actually happened or taken place and

is only accepted or entertained whenever it is made by submission of

requisite fees, barring which no application is accepted or dealt with.

Hence, the petitioners were asked to submit the prescribed form with

requisite fees if they intended to transfer the original name to another

name.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, pursuant to the

order of the learned Single Judge dated March 14, 2022 passed in

WPA 5525 of 2021, the Registering Authority ought to have

considered the petitioners' case as that of merely a change of name

and not transfer of ownership.

5. It is submitted that since there is no provision for mere change of

name in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the 1988 Act") or

the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for the sake of brevity, "the

1989 Rules"), the order dated March 29, 2022 passed by respondent

no.1 be quashed on the premise that full registration charges,

equivalent to transfer by way of sale or otherwise from one distinct

person to another, could not be charged for merely endorsing the

change of name on the Registration Certificate.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authorities submits

that the only provision available in the 1988 Act with regard to

change of name is found in Section 50 thereof. The procedure for the

same is given in Rule 56, read with Rule 81, of the 1989 Rules. Since

both the said provisions contemplate 'transfer of ownership', there is

no other alternative before the respondents but to consider the

petitioners' application for alteration of name of the partnership firm

as a transfer of ownership.

7. Upon considering the arguments of counsel and the relevant

provisions, it transpires that Section 50 of the 1988 Act deals with

'transfer of ownership' in all its connotations. Sub-section (2) thereof

provides that where the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands

registered dies or a motor vehicle has been purchased or acquired at

a public auction conducted by or on behalf of the Government, "the

person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle", etc., shall make

an application for the purpose of transferring ownership of the vehicle

in his name, to the Registering Authority in whose jurisdiction he

has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally

kept, in such manner and accompanied with such fee and within

such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

8. The consequences for failing to report to the Registering Authority,

the fact of transfer or making an application under sub-section (2)

have also been stipulated in the subsequent sub-sections of Section

50.

9. Sub-section (3) provides that the authority may require the transferor

or transferee or the other person as the case may be to pay, in lieu of

any action that may be taken against him under Section 177, such

amount not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed

under sub-section (5).

10. Sub-section (4) provides that no action shall be taken under Section

177 where a person has paid such amount as provided under sub-

section (3).

11. Obviously, in case of change of name of the owner of a vehicle

simpliciter, there is no 'transfer' in reality between two separate

entities, but only a devolution of the ownership inter se the same

juristic/natural entity, in its/her different nomenclatures.

12. The provision having closest resemblance to change of name,

although not provided specifically in the 1988 Act or the 1989 Rules,

is apparently Section 50(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. The said provision

contemplates a case where the person in whose name a motor vehicle

stands registered dies, in which case the person succeeding to the

possession of the vehicle shall make an application for the purpose of

transferring the ownership of the vehicle in his name to the

Registering Authority concerned.

13. Rule 56 of the 1989 Rules is the provision corresponding to Section

50 of the 1988 Act. The said Rule deals with transfer of ownership on

the death of the owner of a vehicle and provides that where the owner

of a motor vehicle dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the

vehicle may, for the period of three months from the death, use the

vehicle as if it has been transferred to him. The proviso to sub-rule (1)

of Rule 56 stipulates that such person has to inform the Registering

Authority within 30 days of the death of the owner, of the occurrence

of such death and of his own intention to use the vehicle.

14. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 56 provides the formalities to be complied with by

the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle, contemplating

an application in Form 31 within three months from the death of the

owner to the Registering Authority for the transfer of ownership of the

vehicle in his name.

15. Rule 81 of the 1989 Rules enumerates the fees charged under

different situations. Serial No.6 of the Accompanying Table provides

payment of fees for 'transfer of ownership' within the contemplation,

inter alia, of Rule 56(2)(a) of the 1989 Rules to be half of the fee

mentioned in Serial No. 4 thereof, which deals with issuance, renewal

of certificates of registration and assignment of new registration

marks.

16. The provisions closest in resemblance to the present case are as

discussed above. Thus, in the absence of any specific provision

dealing with the change of name of the owner, the above provisions

are required to be followed in case of change of name of a partnership

firm, as in the case of the petitioners.

17. It appears from the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, passed by

the respondent no.1, as per purported requirement of the VAAHAN 4

system, that the provisions regarding change of ownership details

including 'in-succession' cases of any vehicle have been directed to be

done through the 'Transfer of Ownership' flow of work, which requires

requisite forms and prescribed government fees to initiate the

process. The date of 'sale or transfer', as has also been insisted by

the authorities, has to be as mentioned by the applicant.

18. The impugned order, however, is vague inasmuch as the exact fees

payable by the petitioners is concerned. However, as discussed

above, the provisions of Section 50(2)(a) of the 1988 Act, along with

Rule 56, read with Rule 81, of the 1989 Rules are applicable in the

present case.

19. Rule 56(2)(b) requires the death certificate in relation to the registered

owner to be substituted, which, in the present case, ought to be

deemed to be the document(s) evidencing change of the firm name.

There ought not to be any difficulty for the petitioners to produce the

other documents in respect of the vehicle. Insofar as the fees payable

are concerned, Rule 81 deals comprehensively with 'transfer of

ownership', which does not distinguish between cases of succession

of ownership and regular transfer of ownership. Rule 56(2)(a) is

supplemented by Serial No.6 of the Table accompanying Rule 81,

which prescribes the requisite fees to be half of the fee mentioned in

Serial No.4, which covers issuance and renewal of certificates of

registration and assignment of new registration marks in respect of

different classes of vehicles.

20. In the present case, the impugned order has to be interpreted in the

light of the aforesaid provisions. Hence, the petitioners/applicants

are to apply for transfer of ownership, upon payment half of the fee

mentioned for the particular class of vehicle as mentioned in Serial

No.4 of the Table accompanying Rule 81 of the 1989 Rules.

21. Hence, the aforesaid riders have to be read into the impugned order

dated March 29, 2022.

22. WPA No.8027 of 2022 is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the

above observations. The respondent-Authorities shall, upon the

aforementioned application being made and fees being deposited,

immediately take necessary consequential steps with regard to

effecting the necessary changes in the Register and the Registration

Certificate. Necessary changes in that regard shall, if required, be

made in the official portal of the transport department.

23. There will be no order as to costs.

24. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be supplied to the parties

applying for the same, upon due compliance of all requisite

formalities.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )