MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an unemployed graduate. He purchased a mini bus bearing registration No. BPH 8378 under the scheme of financial assistance to the unemployed graduates in the year 1977. It was also registered under the Bihar Taxation of Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Temporary permit was granted and it was renewed time to time, He was paying tax on the basis of compounding scheme. The order of assessment was passed on 10 -8 -1982 for the period 1 -1 -1980 to 31 -3 -1982, Annexure -3. NO appeal was filed. However, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Act before the Commissioner for exercising suo motu revisional power. The petitioner was rejected on 2 -9 -1987, Annexure -4, The petitioner moved the Tribunal against the said order. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of the Commissioner vide order dated 15 -6 -1988, Annexure -5, The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders, Annexures 3, 4 and 5.

(2.) THE question for determination in this case is as to whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner for exercising suo motu revisional power conferred under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the reads as follows: Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Act, the Prescribed Authority may, on application of its own motion, revise any order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder: Provided that no order passed under Section 7 or Sub -section (2) of Section 6 or Sub -section (3) of Section 9 or under Section 10 shall be revised on application by an owner or other person unless an order under Sub -section (3) of Section 13 has been previously passed in respect of the said order.

(3.) THUS , on consideration as discussed above, the order of Commissioner, Annexure -4, and the order of Tribunal, Annexure -5, cannot be held to be legal. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The orders, Annexures 4 and 5, are hereby quashed. The patter is remitted to the Commissioner, respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner by exercising suo motu revisional power in accordance with law.