A permit holder must own the vehicle covered by the permit for valid applications to replace or renew it, as mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

(1) An order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Purba Medinipur/respondent No.3, dated July 10, 2024, is under challenge in the present writ petition. Before dealing with the factual background of the instant case, one may have a look the decision of the said respondent authority and the reasons there for, in the impugned order dated July 10, 2024.

(2) The subject matter pertains to the petitioner’s application for replacement of the old vehicle and renewal of his permit. A sale and replacement order was issued in favour of the writ petitioner on August 17, 2022 by the said respondent no. 3. In the impugned order as above it has been held that the conditions as prescribed in the said sale and replacement order dated August 17, 2022 particularly that contained in clause-2 thereof, has not been complied with, rather has been violated by the writ petitioner. It has also been stated in the said impugned order to that with respect to the old vehicle, bearing No. WB 31-8580, the petitioner has not duly remitted to negotiate statutory fees, taxes and charges. The said respondent has mentioned in his order as above, that even before the day when the petitioner has applied for replacement of his vehicle, he has sold out and allowed registration of his old vehicle, in the name of some 3^rd person, in effect to be attached with some other permit. Therefore, according to the said respondent, on the date of prayer of the petitioner seeking replacement of the vehicle, the vehicle was not owned by him anymore. Considering that to be a violation of the conditions as prescribed in the sale and replacement order dated August 17, 2022, the respondent No. 3, in the said impugned order has finally decided that “the reason for refusal of replacement of the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB 31-8580 by the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB 33D-8178 was justified and now there is no scope for the undersigned to grant the replacement as prayed for by the Petitioner.”

(3) Hence, the said order of the respondent No. 3, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(4) Mr Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate has represented the writ petitioner. He has vehemently attacked the said impugned order dated July 10, 2024, on the grounds more than one. Firstly, he has stated, that the respondent authority would not have gone into the question of replacement if can be granted to the writ petitioner, any further, for the reason that it has already dealt with the petitioner’s prayer as above and allowed the same by dint of its order dated August 17, 2022. The said fact, having not been disputed, but only accepted by the respondent authority, any deviation therefrom would amount to be violation by the respondent authority of its own order. Mr Chatterjee learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the said impugned order is an illegal and perverse one, insofar as, the same does not contain as a reason of its decision, any ground specified in the statute, that is either, in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (section 83 of the Act of 1988 in particular) or the Rules framed thereunder (rule-153 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Ruled 1989 in particular), which could have been stated to be to justify the grounds of rejection of the petitioner’s prayer. According to Mr Chatterjee, the clauses mentioned in the sale and replacement order as above or any alleged violation thereof would not be any cogent, justifie