RAMNARESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the registered owner of Truck No. BRQ 1651. His plea is that the truck is badly deteriorated. He had no sufficient money to effect repairs and put it on road. He surrendered the valid papers of the vehicle before the District Transport Officer on 1 7 1980. Respondent No. 3, District Transport Officer, Patna informed the petitioner by Annexure l dated 6 5 1992 that the vehicle shown in the surrender application was not found there and so it had plied on the road and cancelled the surrender. The petitioner was asked to pay the entire tax from 1 7 1988 till the date of order with penalty of 50%, The petitioner represented before the District Transport Officer that the vehicle was still in the garage (Annexure 2). The Transport Commissioner, by Annexure 3 publication, published a news item in the Hindustan Times, that all the owners including the present petitioner should deposit the taxes on the grounds that the vehicle sought to be surrendered were not found in the respective places. Thereupon, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 10139 of 1992 and this Court, by Annexure 4 dated 5 11 1992, directed the District Transport Officer, Patna to inspect the vehicle and if the vehicle was not found to be in a fit condition, he shall determine the tax liability, if any, by passing an order in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to file a representation before the District Transport Officer within one week. He did so and filed Annexure 5 exemption dated 7 12 1992. Therein, he put forward the plea that he surrendered the papers of the vehicle on 1 7 1980 and since then the papers are surrendered and no certificate of fitness was taken or granted and no permit was taken for the period in question. He pleaded in Paragraph 10 of Annexure 5 that the road tax for the period from 1 7 1980 till the date of Annexure 5 may be exempted. By Annexure 6 dated 25 9 1993, the Joint Transport Commissioner adverted to the above aspects and held 'that the petitioner could not prove by any material in support of the facts stated, which may be without any doubt that the vehicle ha i not operated on the road.' (Free English Translation of Annexure 6 supplied by petitioner's counsel). It was further held that 'in the course of physical verification the vehicle was not found in any garage but at the door of the applicant and the condition of the vehicle was found very damaged and was not fit to be repaired bat he could not come to the conclusion when the vehicle came in this rotten position.' 'The applicant could not prove that the vehicle could not operate in the entire period, tax (exemption in) claimed,' The plea for exemption was rejected, (It was stated at the Bar that the physical verification was on 25 2 1993) In this writ petition, the challenge is against Annexure 6 as illegal and unauthorised. The respondents have produced the relevant files.

(2.) , Heard counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the respondents.

(3.) I am of the view that the interpretation placed on Section 9 A of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1930 (Act II of 1930). hereinafter referred to as 'The Act', is misconceived. Under Section 4 read with Section 2(e) of the Act, the State Government may appoint a Taxing Officer. Section 9 A of the Act provides thus: