Compliance of the provisions of Rules to be made by permit holder.

The petitioner-company is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It carries on business of hire purchase on vehicles, machinery, equipments and also leasing of machinery and equipments. It filed the abovewrit petition for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records of the 1st respondent in No.l05385/A4/93, dated 2. 1993 and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to issue a fresh Registration Certificate under Sec.51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to the vehicle TN 59 A 0144 in favour of the petitioner-company.

.2. In the course of business, the petitioner was approached by the 2nd respondent during May, 1990, with a request to purchase a new Ashok Leyland Chassis from the dealers M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd., Madurai, and let it on hire to the 2nd respondent (hirer) under hire purchase system. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 25. 1990 wherein one P.V.Kandaswami of Madurai, joined as a guarantor. The total hire purchase amount of Rs.4,00,993 is payable in 35 monthly instalments. The first instalment commenced on 26. 1990 and the last instalment ended on 224.1993. The said dealer also raised invoice in the name of the petitioner-company as owners of the vehicle showing the 2nd respondent only as a hirer. The fact of the said hire purchase agreement was also recorded in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle TN 59 A 0144 by the Assistant Registering Authority, Madurai.

3. It is to be noticed that under the Law of Contract and in terms of the hire purchase agreement, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the hire purchase vehicle till the entire amount under the contract is paid by the 2nd respondent and he exercises his option to purchase the vehicle in writing. Under Clause III of the hire purchase agreement, the hirer should pay the monthly instalments on the due dates mentioned in the second schedule therein, whether previously demanded by the petitioner or not, failing which the peti- tioner is entitled to exercise its paramount right of re-possession on the vehicle by virtue of Condition No.9 of the said hire purchase agreement.

.4. The hirer was irregular and committed default in paying the monthly instalments due from 24. 1991. He failed to regularise the contract despite the petitioner-company’s several demands. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to re-possess the hire purchase vehicle on 112. 1991 in exercise of the paramount right conferred under the hire purchase agreement. The petitioner garaged the vehicle at M/s.Sundaram Motors, Vijayawada. Further to re-possession, (vide letter RC/1490/91, dated 112. 1991 with a copy marked to the guarantor), the petitioner intimated the fact of re-possession to the hirer and also called upon him to settle the contract within ten days from the date of receipt of the letter. The hirer failed to comply with the demand of the petitioner despite the fact that the said letter was duly acknowledged by him. In order to claim exemption of motor vehicles tax and the permit tax, the petitioner in and by letter RC/1482/91, dated 112. 1991, intimated the 1st respondent the fact of re-possession and also the stoppage of the vehicle. Since the vehicle was garaged within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer, Vijayawada, a copy of the letter was also sent to him by way of information.

5. Ever since the date of re-possession, the petitioner sent stoppage reports to the 1st respondent with copies marked to the Regional Transport Officer, Vijayawada, vide stoppage reports RC/ 2064/92, dated 23. 1992, RC/0526/92, dated 26. 1992. RC/0990/92 dated 29. 1992 and RC/ 1595/92, dated 212. 1992. Further to the petitioner’s letter dated 112. 1991, the 1st respondent in and by communication dated 12. 1992, requested the Regional Transport Officer,