Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 388 (MP)

Ramsewak Sharma v. State of M. P.

2014-04-05

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
ORDER Rathi, J. -- 1. Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 22.3.2014 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision No.237/2013, seeking following reliefs : “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing a writ of certiorari or any suitable writ, order, or direction and the order impugned dated 22.3.2014 (Anex. P/1) may kindly be quashed restoring permit (Anex.P/5) in the interest of justice. Any order, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of case may kindly be passed, awarding cost of petition to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts necessary for just disposal of the present petition are that petitioner on 19.6.2013 had moved an application for grant of permanent permit of the Vehicle No.MP06-P-0406 of 2010 model having capacity of 50+2 seats from Guna to Gwalior via Shivpuri, Mohana Route for two single trips daily by depositing requisite fee 1500/-. The said application was heard by the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No.2, on 30.7.2013 which was objected by the objector, respondent No.3, on the basis of dues of taxes on the vehicles of the sons of petitioner. Learned Regional Transport Authority vide its order dated 18.9.2013 allowed the application filed by the petitioner rejecting the objections raised by respondent No.3. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, objector, respondent No.3 preferred a revision which was registered at No.237/2013 and was allowed by the learned STAT cancelling the permit granted to the petitioner. Against the order of such cancellation of permit, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. The moot question for consideration is that whether Revision No. 237/2013 could have been allowed by the STAT on the sole ground of non-payment of arrears of taxes by the sons of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned STAT has not considered the case of the petitioner in right perspective and quashed the grant of permit of the petitioner on the basis of dues of taxes of his son i.e. respondent No.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel that respondent No.4 who is his son is doing the business of transport independently and is having no connection with the business of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel that respondent No.4 who is his son is doing the business of transport independently and is having no connection with the business of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that as per provisions of M.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act tax is imposed and recovered from the owner of such vehicle in whose name it is registered as per the procedure prescribed therein. The provisions contained under the rules and the Act do not provide that any other person i.e. other than the owner of the vehicle is liable to be held responsible for non-payment of tax of such vehicle. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/objector denied the case of the petitioner in toto and finally it was submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal is well merited and thus no interference in it is called for. 7. Having regard to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, the order impugned has been perused. 8. On perusal of the order impugned, it is gathered that the learned STAT, in para 52, has held that plea taken by the revisionist is worth acceptable that the sons of respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) are in arrears of tax of lacs of the rupees and also the proof of it has been filed. It is further mentioned by the learned STAT in the said para that when this objection was raised before the Regional Transport Authority it ought to have been resolved at the moment. The sons of respondent No.2 (petitioner herein) are in arrears of taxes of lacs of rupees and they are all doing the same business being the members of joint family and therefore they cannot be considered to be separate and thus the petitioner is not entitled to new permit. 9. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Safique v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others [order dated 11.2.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.555/2013] has mentioned thus : “Division Bench of this Court in Kishan v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2008(I) MPJR 87 has considered the provisions of Rule 72(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and held as under in regard to eligibility of a person to receive permit if the tax is due against him : “11. In this context it is apposite to refer Rule 72(3) of the 1994 Rules. It reads as under : “72(3) The application for stage carriage permit or reserved stage carriage permit as required under sub-section(1) of section 70 shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely : (a) an authentic route map along with certified distance between various stages and certificate regarding motorability of the route from the departments which have control over such road; (b) Certificate from Registering Authority containing make, model and seating capacity of the vehicles owned by the applicant at the time of making the application; (c) details of the stage carriage and reserved stage carriage permits already held by the applicant. (d) no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned; (e) declaration duly certified by an officer of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation authorized by the Managing Director about the portion and distance of the route covered by any nationalization scheme; and (f) any other information as may be required by the Transport Authority.” 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior v. Ram Prasad Purohit and others, 2001(3) MPLJ 339 has held that the said rule is not mandatory. Under the Rule a no due certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned is required to be furnished. It has been held that the said rule is not mandatory. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that it was not essential on the part of the appellant to submit a certificate alongwith the application for permit. But that does not necessarily mean that the appellant who is in arrears of dues would become entitled for grant of permit. What it means is if the no dues certificate is not accompanied, the application cannot be thrown overboard on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement but when an issue is raised that a candidate is in arrears, the authority concerned is under obligation to scrutinized the same. Regional Transport Officer had not scrutinized the same. In revision the tribunal scrutinized the same and bestowed consideration. Learned single Judge has referred to Annexure P/7 from which it is noticeable that the appellant was in arrears of dues of taxes, composition fees and interest at the time of consideration of the application. Regional Transport Officer had not scrutinized the same. In revision the tribunal scrutinized the same and bestowed consideration. Learned single Judge has referred to Annexure P/7 from which it is noticeable that the appellant was in arrears of dues of taxes, composition fees and interest at the time of consideration of the application. Learned single Judge has not lent credence to the instance that vehicle was not in use as the relevant documents were not produced before the Tribunal. 10. In view of the principle laid down as aforementioned, the impugned order has been perused. On perusal, it is clear that lacs of rupees were due on the members of the joint family of the petitioner and he has not filed any no dues certificate before the STAT when objection was raised. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned STAT is well merited and does not require any interference. 11. Ex consequenti, present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. R. D. Sharma for petitioner; Vivek Khedkar, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2/State; N.K. Gupta for respondent No.3.