Back
2007 Supreme(All) 709
[2007(4) ADJ 211]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
SHREE NARAIN GUPTA ——Petitioner
Versus
APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS —Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14789 of 2007, decided on 20th March, 2007)
A.D. Sounders for the Petitioner; Devendra Kumar for the Respondent No. 3.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 50(1) and 50(2)—Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989—Rules 55 and 56—Motor vehicle—Transfer of its registration—Procedure for—Is contained in Section 50 and Rules 55 and 56—Forms to be filled in are Forms 29, 30 and 31—When registered owner dies and transfer of ownership is sought, Rule 56 and Form 31 are attracted—In the instant case, owner of vehicle died on 18.5.2004 and application for transfer of ownership of vehicle was filed by X under Section 50 alongwith Forms 29 and 30, after his death—Signature of deceased was found on forms—It was said that deceased had signed those forms prior to his death—Registering authority allowed that application of X and transferred ownership of vehicle in his favour—But when widow of deceased came to know this fraudulent act of X, she applied for cancellation of that order—Her application for transfer rightly allowed—Order of transfer of ownership itself was against provisions of law. [Paras 8 to 12]
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
Honble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Shri A.D.Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devendra Kumar appearing for respondent No. 3.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.5.2006 passed by Registering Authority cancelling the transfer of Registration granted in favour of the petitioner of Vehicle No. UP-78/AD-1006. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate authority vide its order dated 7.12.2006 which has also been prayed to be quashed.
3. Brief facts for deciding the writ petition are; the vehicle No. UP-78/AD-1006 was registered in the name of one Sanjay Kumar Gupta who died on 18.5.2004. After death of Sanjay Kumar Gupta the petitioner filed an application in form 29 and form 30 on 19.8.2004 along with an affidavit dated 3.8.2004 praying that the vehicle be transferred in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of said application the, vehicle was transferred in favour of the petitioner. An application was, filed by Smt. Shobha Gupta, w/o Late Sanjay Kumar Gupta stating that by playing fraud the vehicle has been got transferred by the petitioner in his name by putting up some imposter. Death certificate and the succession certificate was filed by Smt. Sobha Gupta along with the application. Registering authority issued notices to the petitioner after receiving the said complaint and after hearing both the parties, passed the order dated 27.5.2006 cancelling the transfer of registration granted earlier in favour of the petitioner. The Registering Authority observed that Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta had already died on 18.5.2004 and the application in form No. 30 and 29 were submitted containing signature of Sanjay Kumar Gupta which is nothing but fraud played by the petitioner. Against the said order dated 27.5.2006 appeal was filed which too has been dismissed by the Appellate authority confirming the finding of Registering Authority.
4. Shri A.D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that signatures were made by Sanjay Kumar Gupta before his death in form No. 29 and 30 which were presented on 19.8.2006 subsequent to death, hence there was no error in the order of Registering Authority transferring the registration in favour of the petitioner. He submits that under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no prohibition of presenting an application signed by a person who has died earlier.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide for transfer of ownership. Sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the said Section 50 which is relevant for the present case is quoted below :
“50. Transfer of ownership.—(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred,—
(a) the transferor shall,—
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the same State, within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered outside the State, within forty-five days of the transfer, forward to the registering authority referred to in sub-clause (i)—
(A) the no objection certificate obtained under Section 48; or
(B) in a case where no such certificate has been obtained,—
(I) the receipt obtained under sub-section (2) of Section 48; or
(ll) the postal acknowledgement received by the transferor if he has sent an application in this behalf by registered post acknowledgement due to the registering authority referred to in Section 48,
together with a declaration that he has not received any communication from such authority refusing to grant such certificate or requiring him to compl
