JAGARDEO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is the owner of Bus No. USB 3148 which has been seized by the ARO, Varanasi under Sec. 15 (2) of the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam 1962 for failure to pay the passengers Tax amounting to Rs. 30172/50 Paise. It appears that the applicant applied to the State of U. P. for fixation of instalments On J9-1-1982 the State Government permitted the applicant to pay the arrears of passenger tax in monthly instalment of Rs. 1500/-. It also directed that security be taken from the applicant. It further directed that in the event of failure to pay any instalment, the whole amount could be realised. Armed with this order, the applicant desired that his vehicle be released. THE Addl. CJM, Varanasi has rejected this prayer vide his order dated 28-1-1982. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders and the affidavits and annexures filed along with this application. I have also carefully examined the provisions of the U. P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam 1962. In the first place, I do not find any provision in this Act, authorising the State Government to interfere with the order passed by the RTO seizing the Bus for non-payment of passenger tax. Under Sec. 13, the State Government has been authorised to appoint an appellate authority for the whole State under this Act. Section 13 (2) details the various orders against which an appeal can be filed. The proviso to Sec. 13 is to the effect that no appeal shall be entertained by the appellate authority unless it is satisfied that the amount of tax assessed has been paid. Every such order, passed in appeal under Sec. 13 of the aforesaid Act, has been made final. An order seizing the vehicle for non-payment of passenger tax has not been made appealable. In my opinion, therefore, the State Government did not possess jurisdiction to modify the order seizing the Bus of the applicant on failure to pay the passenger tax.

(3.) FROM the equitable point of view also, I am of the opinion, that it would be setting up a wrong precedent and also encourage defaulters from avoiding payment of passenger tax by not makiing due payments in accordance with law, and after the amount due has inflated to a big one, to pay the same, by instalments and again avoid payment of future passenger tax. Moreover, if the Bus is released, even on giving security, it would become highly complicated and difficult process for the Regional Transport Authorities to recover the amount due in case the Bus owner dishonestly decides to take the Bus to distant places and to ply it far away from his jurisdiction. It is always open to the defaulter, if he is really genuine in his desire to pay the passenger tax due to arrange for the payment of the entire arrears as early as possible and to secure a release of his Bus.