MADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. Smt. Madhu Singh, wife of late Ambarish Singh, resident of Prem Nagar, Bareilly, challenges the notice of auction dated 22-11-1995 contained in Annexure 1 to this petition. She further prays for restraining the Tehsildar, Faridpur, district Bareilly (respondent No. 2) and Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly ' (respondent No. 4) from selling peti tioner's bus No. URW 411 by auction to be held on 6-1-1996.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to this petition are as under : (i) Late Ambarish Singh, husband of the petitioner-Smt. Madhu Singh, took a loan amounting to Rs. 18, 525 from Bank of Baroda (respondent No. 3) in the year 1985 for purchasing an oil expeller which was installed in his village Richa where his agricultural landed property situate. He died in the year 1986 and the total amount which he had borrowed could not be repaid to the Bank. (ii) After the death of Ambarish Singh, petitioner Madhu Singh's relations became strained with her father-in-law Ahibaran Singh, with the result Smt. Madhu Singh had to leave village Richa and to shift and settle down at Bareilly, as a result of which Ahibaran Singh, the father-in-law took over possession of the oil expeller and other property belonging to the peti tioner, and thus she could not repay the loan to the bank. (iii) It is stated that petitioner's husband was also carrying on business of transport on the strength of a stage carriage permit granted in his favour by the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly respondent No. 4. The income derived out of this bus was the only source of petitioner's livelihood. (iv) It is further stated that on 15-11-1995 the petitioner's said bus (URW 411) was seized by the respondents Collector, Bareilly and Tehsildar, Bareilly in order to auction the same for realisation of the loan borrowed and could not be paid by the petitioner's husband from the Bank of Baroda. (v) After seizure the bus, a notice for auction was served on the petitioner on 22-11-1995 and the date of auction was fixed on 1-12-1995, but it is stated that 1-12-1995 was adjourned to 12-12-1995 and again 12-12-1995 was adjourned to 5-1-1996. (vi) On coming to know about the auction etc. the petitioner con tacted respondent No. 2 Teshildar, Tehsil Faridpur, district Bareilly and submitted that she has neither received any citation nor any recovery certificate is issued by the Collector in respect of recovery of the said loan as arrears of land revenue, and on enquiry she also came to know that total recovery is for an amount of Rs. 54,000. It is also averred that she deposited Rs. 10,000 on 9-12-1995 vide receipt contained in Annoxure-2 and vide Annexure-3 dated 11-12-1995 a detailed representation to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Bareitly was made stating that she is further read to deposit Rs. 20,000 and for the balance amount she may be permitted to deposit in instalments of Rs. 5,000 per month, but the bus which is the only source of her livelihood may be released. (vii) It is also averred that on receipt of the said representation, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance) directed the respon dent No. 2 to grant time subject to petitioner's depositing half of the amount. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioner further deposited Rs. 11,000 on 12-12- 1995 and Rs. 10,000 on 15-12-1995 vide Annexure-4 and 5 respectively to this petition. In this way, the petitioner deposited total Rs. 31,000, which is more than half of the total impugned recovery. (viii) It is further submitted that in between the respondent No. 4 Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly intimated Tehsildar. Faridpur that an amount of Rs. 42,282 is due against the petitioner towards passenger tax, road tax against said bus No. URW 411, and therefore it was directed that the said bus may not be released to the petitioner until this amount as well is recovered from or paid by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that in respect of passenger tax, road tax, no notice for assessment proceeding was ever issued to her and as such recovery of the said amount by way of auctioning the bus, is completely without jurisdiction being against the pro visions of U. P. Motor Gari (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam. (ix) On these facts this petition is filed seeking the aforesaid relief.

(3.) ON 12-1-1996 Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, took notice on behalf of the respondents and undertook to file counter-affidavit within a week. The petition was there fore, directed to be listed on 19-1-1996.