IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Ct.551 02.07.25 Item No.18 Sws.M WPA 1661 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 SrikantoGhosh Vs Union of India &Ors.

Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta Mr. Biswapriya Samanta Mr. S. Palit Mr. Akash Kumar Chakraborty …for the petitioner Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Ld. AGP Mrs. Ashima Das (Sil)

Ms. Raima Ganguly ….for the State Mr. N.I. Khan Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Dilip Kumar Mandal …for the added respondent Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Uttam Basak …for the Union of India

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-grant of trade certificate in terms of Rule 35(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereafter „the said Rules‟).

2. Briefly summed up the relevant facts are that the petitioner applied for grant of trade certificate in the category of dealer in Form 16A on or about August 7, 2024 and also the requisite fees in respect of the same in accordance with the relevant laws. The petitioner claims to be a dealer in terms of an Authorised Dealer Agreement entered into between the petitioner and one Honda Motorcycle Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

3. Despite the petitioner having filed the application for grant of trade certificate along with requisite fees, trade certificate has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

4. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to Rule 34 of the said Rules and submits that in terms thereof, the only requirement for the purpose of obtaining trade certificate is to make an application before the authorities with the requisite details and in the format prescribed under Rule 34 of the said Rules.

5. Mr. Samanta submits that the petitioner has made an application in consonance with the provisions of Rule 34 of the said Rules. He submits that once an application complying with the provisions of Rule 34 was made, the authorities ought to have taken a decision on such application and they could not have kept it pending.

6. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents relies on the report in the form of affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents and submits that trade certificate could not be issued in favour of the petitioner because of the confusion created by the “Authorized Dealer Agreement” provided by the petitioner along with his application wherein expressions like “associate dealer”, “authorized dealer” and “authorized main dealer” have been used. He submitted that the registering authority also sought for clarification from the manufacturing company with whom the petitioner claims to have entered into the said “Authorized Dealer Agreement” but no clarification was given and as such the petitioner could not be granted trade certificate.

7. It is further submitted that Rule 34 speaks about only dealers and therefore the usage of various other expressions along with the expression dealer in the said agreement has created confusion and the petitioner‟s status therefore cannot be decided with certainty.

8. Mr. Khan, learned advocate appearing for the applicant in CAN 1 of 2025 (an application for addition of party) submits that his client is the “Authorized Main Dealer” and that his client has been granted a trade certificate on the basis of an agreement to that effect which is captioned Authorised Main Dealer Agreement. He further submits that any grant of trade certificate in favour of the petitioner would adversely affect his client and therefore his client should be heard by this Court, while hearing the writ petition.

9. Mr. Khan further relies on Rule 33 of the said Rules and submits that a person in order to be entitled to apply must fulfill the conditions mentioned in Rule 33.

10. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that the objection taken by the State authorities is not well founded. He reiterates that the o