Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 25.4.2008 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition calling the petitioner to pay taxes of the vehicle No. UP 32 A 1517.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present controversy is discussed hereinafter :

3. The petitioner is a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of finance, mainly deals with motor vehicles. The petitioner financed the motor vehicles through higher purchase agreement to the interested parties. Trade certificate has also been issued to the petitioner under Rule 35 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

4. The respondent No. 6 moved an application to provide finance for the purchase of TATA truck, later on registered as UP 32 A 1517. The petitioner and the respondent No. 6 entered into higher purchase agreement on 21.10.2004 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has financed the respondent No. 6 for purchase of truck with monthly instalment of Rs. 4,400/- for a period of two years. A copy of the higher purchase agreement dated 21.10.2004 is Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The hire amount was Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 16% resulting into agreed total consideration to be paid by hirer was Rs.1,05,600/-, payable into 24 equal monthly instalments. The respondent No. 6 hirer has also executed a promissory note on 21.10.2004 (Annexure-3). In terms of the higher purchase agreement, vehicle was handed over to the opposite party No. 6 and also registered in his name under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in short, Act. The certificate of registration reveals the respondent No. 6 as owner and the petitioner as finance company. The vehicle was used as public service vehicle covered by permit granted by the transport authorities.

5. On account of default of payment of instalments, it is alleged that the petitioner has issued a registered notice on 6.5.2005 to the opposite party No. 6, inter alia stating to pay the outstanding instalment of Rs.26,363/- for the period up to 21.5.2005, failing which to repossess the vehicle. A notice was also alleged to be sent to the guarantor. It is stated that in spite of notice, the opposite party No. 6 has not paid the dues and after waiting for a month, the vehicle was repossessed by the petitioner in terms of the agreement on 13.7.2005. After repossessing the vehicle, an auction notice was issued on 20.7.2005 by the petitioner but no one turned up. On 10.8.2005, the petitioner submitted an application to the transport authority for registration of the vehicle in its name according to the provision contain in Sub Section (5) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in prescribed form No. 34. It appears that during pendency of the application for registration, the petitioner had sold the vehicle to a Kabari on 6.9.2005 for consideration of Rs.70,000/-. According to the petitioner’s counsel, in spite of return of Rs.70,000/-, the petitioner was in loss of Rs.28,040/-. Hence, another registered notice was sent on 19.9.2005 (Annexure-7) for payment of remaining dues. An account payee cheque dated 3.10.2005 was given by the respondent No. 6 to the petitioner but the cheque was dishonoured because of closure of account which was duly informed to the petitioner by the Bank of India concerned by letter dated 24.10.2005 (Annexure-9). The petitioner stated that in spite of information communicated to the transport authorities that the vehicle has been sold and registration has been cancelled, the transport authority has not paid any heed to his request and sent a notice dated 6.2.2008 (Annexure No. 10) asking to appear on 15.2.2008 with documents. The parties appeared before the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Administration) and submitted a representation dated 15.2.2008. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 4 issued another notice dated 19.2.2008, contained in A