IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay WPA 16318 of 2025 Sri Sristidhar Ghosh Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanat Kumar Roy :

For the State Mr. Amal Kumar Sen : Ms. Ashima Das (Sil)

Heard on : 30/04/2025 Judgment on : 30/04/2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The petitioner has received an offer letter dated August 24, 2023, which has been extended up to February 24 2024. On or before the extended date, the petitioner was obliged to produce his vehicle before the Authority, as a condition precedent, for issuance of permit to him, which has not been admittedly done by the petitioner. The petitioner has explained as to why, and for what unavoidable reasons, the vehicle could not have been placed before expiry of the validity of the offer letter on February 24, 2024, in this writ petition. Before that, however, the respondent authority upon considering the offer letter of the petitioner as above to have expired without the petitioner allegedly having complied with the conditions there in by producing his vehicle, has expressed its inability to issue permit to the writ petitioner in terms of the resolution of the Board dated December 3, 2022. Hence, being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

2. The vehicle was purchased by the petitioner, by dint of an agreement for sale executed on February 12, 2024. According to the petitioner, immediately on the very next date, it has submitted requisite documents before the appropriate Authority, for registering the vehicle in his name, in place and stead of the erstwhile owner thereof. Allegedly that since the appropriate Authority, has failed to register the vehicle within time, the petitioner has not been able to produce the same, in terms of the offer letter as owner above, though the petitioner has become the of the vehicle, in terms of the stipulations mandated in the law, well within the validity period of the said offer letter. Mr.Roy, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the registering Authority, Contai, Purba Medinipur, has enquired before the bank, which hypothecated the vehicle and received a reply, vide the letter dated February 27, 2024 only. It is Stated that obnanlyk ’safter receipt of the said letter from the bank, the registering Authority has registered the said vehicle in the name of the writ petitioner and has recorded his name against the said vehicle, on April 24, 2024. On April 26, 2024, the petitioner files his application before the respondent/Secretary, RTA, Purba Bardwan, requesting him for issuance of permit, in terms of the offer letter and on production of his vehicle as above, but in vain.

3. Upon hearing submissions of the respective parties, the Court finds that the moot point on which the parties have contested in the instant case is whether on or before the last date of validity of the offer letter of the petitioner, he owner has become the of the vehicle in accordance with law.

In other words, whether the vehicle should be considered to be owned by the petitioner in accordance with law, on the date of his purchasing the same or on the date on which the competent Authority has registered the vehicle in the name of the purchaser/petitioner.

4. Mr. Sen for the State, respondent has placed strong reliance on the documents/data derived from the VAHAN portal, which is the portal for the registered vehicles in the State. He submits that according to the said data as derived from the Portal, the previous owner of the vehicle has owned the same up to April 24, 2024. Therefore, the ownership of the present petitioner who is the subsequent owner of the said vehicle, is required to be considered from a date subsequent to the last date of ownership of the previous vehicle owner, which is April 24, 2024. Considering the said revelation on the basis of the data available in the portal, Mr. Sen has Stated that the peti