JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioner Tata Motors Finance Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is involved in the business of financing and refinancing of the vehicles and equipments in the entire India, having its registered office at 10th Floor, 106 A & B Makar Chamber III, Jamanlal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. It has its Branch Office at 1st Floor, Kashari Talkies Complex-98, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner-company has sought for direction to opposite party no.2 to accept the application for registration of new vehicles financed by it, register the vehicles and, while doing so, enter hypothecation endorsement as per Rule-60 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short “Rules, 1989”) and cancel/terminate such endorsement in the registration certificate as per Rule 61 of the Rules, 1989.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that in course of business, the petitioner-company has financed for purchasing of new vehicles to different customers and entered into hypothecation agreement for such financing and to safeguard its interest. Special provisions, with regard to hypothecation of the vehicles subject to hire purchase agreement etc., have been provided under Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “Act, 1988”) read with Rules 60 and 61 of the Rules, 1989, but the opposite parties are not carrying out their duties, as assigned in the statute, hence this application.

3. Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that when statute prescribes under Section 51 of the Act, 1988 to make endorsement of hypothecation in the certificate of registration (R.C. Book) and also on satisfaction of the loan terminate the said hypothecation, the same is not being carried out by the opposite parties. Due to non-discharging of duties assigned to the authorities concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Subash Chandra Nayak v. Union of India, 2016 (1) OLR 922.

4. Mr. B.K. Shamra, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department states that the petitioner, being a dealer within the meaning of the definition under Section 2(8) of the Act, 1988, is required to have trade certificate which is valid for a period of one year, but after expiry of trade certificate, no permission is accorded to enter or cancel the hypothecation as it has not carried out the renewal of such trade certificate. As such, the action of the authorities in refusing to enter and cancel the hypothecation in the certificate of registration is justified.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

6. For just and proper adjudication of the case, the relevant provisions, which are required to be considered for this case, are reproduced below:-

“Section 2(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

“dealer” includes a person who is engaged-

[(a) ***]

(b) in building bodies for attachment to chassis; or

(c)in the repair of motor vehicles; or

(d)in the businessorhypothecation, leasingorhire purchase of motor vehicles.

Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Necessity for registration-No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Ce