BACHAN SINGH Vs. ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICER ROURKELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the R. T. O. , Rourkela, Sundargarh-O. P. No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the R. T. O. '), refusing to transfer the ownership of Truck bearing Registration No. OR-14-C-7343 in the name of the petitioner, who purchased it in auction from the Orissa State financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and to issue road permit for non-payment of arrears of tax outstanding against the said vehicle prior to the date of auction on the ground that such action of the R. T. O. , is illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that one Rajib Kumar pratihari availed a loan from the corporation and purchased a Tata Truck bearing registration No. OR-14-C-7343. As there was default in repayment of the loan to the corporation, possession of the vehicle was taken over by the Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SFC act') on 15-12-2001. After seizure of the vehicle, a notice for sale of the vehicle was published on 12-1-2002 in The Anupam bharat". In the meeting of Disposal-cum-Advisory Committee held on 29-1-2002, the petitioner on negotiation agreed to purchase the vehicle for a consideration of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs. The Corporation having accepted the offer of the petitioner issued a sale letter in his favour on 31-1-2002 (Annexure-1 ). Pursuant to the said sale letter, petitioner paid rs. 1. 50 lakhs including earnest money immediately and executed necessary documents to secure the balance amount of Rs. 1. 00 lakh. After completion of all the formalities, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the corporation issued a sale memo dated 1-2-2002 (Annexure-2) in favour of the petitioner authorising him to take all necessary steps for transfer of ownership in his favour. The branch Manager of the Corporation (O. P. No. 3) issued a vehicle release order dated 1-2-2002 (Annexure-3) in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which the vehicle was released in his favour of 3-2-2002. The Branch manager of the Corporation also issued a request letter vide Letter No. 2644 dated 1-2-2002 (Annexure-5) to the R. T. O. to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the R. T. O. for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question in his favour by submitting all necessary forms along with the letter dated 1-2-2002 issued by opposite party No. 3. The petitioner also deposited requisite fees (Annexure-6 series) on 8-2-2002 with the R. T. O. for transfer of the ownership in his favour and or grant of the road permit. But the R. T. O. refused to transfer the ownership of the vehicle on the ground that an amount of Rs. 94. 000/- outstanding against the vehicle in question had not been paid by the previous owner. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) MRS. Sujata Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that immediately after purchase of the vehicle in auction the petitioner submitted necessary forms before the R. T. O. and also paid requisite fees for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in his favour and for road permit. The R. T. O. should not have refused to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who became the owner of the said vehicle after purchasing it in auction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of tax and penalty by the previous owner, whose vehicle was seized by the Corporation under Section 29 of the sfc Act. Refusal by the R. T. O. to transfer the vehicle in the name of the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to deliberate harassment to the petitioner for no fault on his part. She further submitted that under no cir cumstance the petitioner should have beer asked to pay the penalty, which was imposed on the previous owner of the vehicle. Refer ring to the letter dated 31-1-2002 (Annexure-1), mrs. Jena submitted that in para graph 6 of the said letter it has been cat egorically mentioned that the Corporatio shall write to the R. T. I. for transfer of own ership of the vehicle in favour of the pet tioner, and the arrears of tax etc. if any, shall be payable by the original loanee. The pet tioner being a bona fide purchaser of th vehicle for consideration, should not b asked to pay the tax and penalty that was payable by the previous owner. Mrs. Jen further submitted that in view of the petition contained in Section 39 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 the vehicle in question cannot be driven in any public place or in any other place by the petitioner unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with law. It was further argued that as per the explanation to Section 3 of the Orissa Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the OMVT Act') which was in force till 25-2-2005, only where there was a certificate of fitness and permit, it was presumed that the vehicle was plying. After purchase of the vehicle in auction, the corporation has only handed over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner, but the certificates of registration and fitness and road permit were not handed over to him. Moreover, since the ownership of the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was not able to obtain the certificate of fitness and permit in absence of certificate of registration and tax clearance certificate. Therefore, the R. T. O. should have presumed that the vehicle was not plying and consequently no tax and penalty should be imposed on the petitioner for the period when there was no certificate of registration, fitness and permit to ply the vehicle. In support of her contention, Mrs. Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, AIR 1997 SC 3854. It was also argued that since the fact of non-use of the vehicle after auction sale was not in dispute, the petitioner should not be asked to pay any tax and penalty unless and until the vehicle is transferred in the name of the petitioner and certificate of registration, fitness and permit are issued in favour of the petitioner an he is permitted to ply the vehicle. Moreover, the R. T. O. has not taken any step to recover the arrears of tax payable from the previous owner even though sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the OMVT act says that nothing contained in Section 12 shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle for payment of arrears of tax.