RANJU CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 9.3.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mau and order dated 22.12.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

(3.) THE A.R.T.O. was called and present before this Court in person and filed his affidavit by way of counter affidavit. It was alleged in the counter affidavit that the vehicle was seized on 19.9.2005 under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The driver could not show the valid licence as required under Section 190(2) of Motor Vehicle Act nor there was pollution certificate under Section 196. There is also no valid insurance. Para-6 of the counter affidavit is important. It has been submitted that initially the vehicle was registered in Maxi Cab bearing sitting capacity with 9+1 but later on it was converted Into a private vehicle, Even if it was converted into private vehicle, it was plying on the road carrying passengers on hire basis. The statement of one Subhash was also recorded. In view of the Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1998, the additional taxes have to be paid for such vehicle. In total tax of Rs. 1,10,000/- has been shown including the additional tax of 33 months at the rate of Rs. 3300/- per month- Rs. 5335/- as tax already due. Because it was a case of tax evasion, hence rightly challaned under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, A rejoinder affidavit was also filed on the ground that the respondent No. 2 has cooked up a false story and the vehicle was not carrying the passengers. The respondent No. 2 taking the advantage of the petitioner being lady seized the vehicle. The petitioner has not flouted any order. On these grounds the order of the Magistrate and that of revisional court refusing the release of vehicle was challenged.