W.P.(C) 3398/2022 $~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3398/2022 VIKAS VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Tarun, Capt. Subedita Ravi, Ms. Aditi Shivadhatri, Ms. Khushi Gupta and Mr. Hemant Jain, Advocates versus MOTOR LICENSING OFFICER .....Respondent Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel, GNCTD with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for GNCTD Mr. Kailash Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent/Motor Licensing Officer (MLO) to cancel the transfer of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL8CAC2306. 2. Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent/MLO wherein it is stated that upon the requisite documents being furnished to the respondent for the transfer of ownership of the subject vehicle, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred to one Mr. Manish Sharma. It is stated that the prescribed Form-29 and Form-30 were submitted to the respondent, which bore the signature of the petitioner and in which Mr. Manish Sharma was shown as a transferee. The said forms have been filed with the status report. 3. On 4th March 2022, notice was issued to Mr. Manish Sharma 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, a reply has been filed on behalf of Mr. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:42:01 W.P.(C) 3398/2022 Manish Sharma, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had borrowed money from him and, upon failing to repay the same, the petitioner agreed to sell the subject vehicle to him. Subsequently, the sale consideration was paid, the requisite transfer documents were duly executed, and the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the records of the respondent/MLO in favour of respondent no.2. It is further stated that the controversy relates to disputed questions concerning the title and ownership of the vehicle, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that both parties have lodged complaints against each other in relation to the subject vehicle. 5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that the transfer of the subject vehicle was effected fraudulently and in violation of the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is asserted that the petitioner neither executed nor consented to the transfer documents and that the signatures appearing thereon have been forged. The petitioner further contends that the respondent/MLO effected the transfer without complying with the mandatory statutory requirements governing transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. It is stated that the dispute concerns not merely the ownership of the vehicle but also the legality of the procedure adopted by the respondent/MLO in effecting the transfer. 6. To be noted, the Predecessor Bench, vide order dated 19th May 2025, had noted that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact in the present writ petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the signatures of the petitioner have been forged on the aforesaid forms. 8. The allegation of the petitioner that the forms have been forged and do not bear his signatures cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of its This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:42:01 W.P.(C) 3398/2022 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. A perusal of the aforesaid forms shows that the forms bear the signatures of the petitioner. In the status report, it has also been stated that the petitioner has made complaint to the DCP, North. The status report also mentions that a complaint has also been filed on behalf of Mr. Manish Sharma that there is a dispute between the petitioner and Mr. Manish Sharma. The said complaint reveals that there were disputes between the petitioner and Mr. Manish Sharma and the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to settle the aforesaid disputes. 10. The petitioner contends that the ownership transfer has been effected without his consent and without due verification of the authenticity of transfer documents and without the insurance being transferred in the name of the transferee. The petitioner was asked to show the relevant rules or statutory provisions which provide for the same. However, the petitioner is unable to substantiate the aforesaid contention by pointing out any specific statutory provision or rule governing the same. 11. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, leaving the petitioner to invoke the remedies that may be available in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 21, 2026 ds This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:42:01