OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist/Petitioner, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. As agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition/revision is disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.1997 passed by Smt. P.K. Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, in Misc. Case No. 30 of 1997. State v. Dilip Kumar and Ors., under the Motor Vehicles Act whereby the Petitioner has been directed to first deposit a sum of Rs. 6,506 as arrears of passenger tax before his application for the release of the vehicle is considered.

(3.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order on the ground that he is the registered owner of the delivery van No. URI-8755 and the same is registered as a private vehicle; that it was never used as a taxi and so he is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as passenger tax. In the seizure memo prepared by the A.R.T.O., it has been mentioned that the vehicle was, at the time of its seizure, carrying 14 passengers on hire. The said contention is disputed by the Petitioner. As per the Transport Authority since the vehicle was carrying passengers on hire, the registered owner of the vehicle is liable to pay passenger tax amounting to Rs. 6,506. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is, however, prepared to furnish bank guarantee of the requisite amount and only after which he prays that the vehicle be released.