Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 446 (JHR)

Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-21

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Das, counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, J.C. to G.P. I, appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire certificate proceeding, being Certificate Case No. 1/RT/ETS/09-10 initiated by the Certificate Officer, Ghatshila on the request filed by the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur for realization of road tax and additional tax for the period of 2.12.2003 to 1.3.2005 against the vehicle (bus), bearing registration no. BPX 9020. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that another Certificate Case No. 2/RT/ETS/07-08 was previously initiated for recovery of road tax and additional tax for the period of 2.12.2003 to 1.09.2005 for the same vehicle having Registration No. BPX 9020, which is inclusive of the period of liability shown in the present certificate case. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted that for the self same period or for almost the same period fresh certificate proceeding could not have been initiated. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that it has been mentioned in para 10 of the writ petition that a writ petition was filed being W.P.(C). No. 2379 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Certificate Officer, Respondent no.3 in Certificate Case No. 2/RT/ETS/2007-08, whereby and whereunder a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner for realization of the certificate amount. A prayer was also made in the said writ petition for quashing order dated 22.04.2009 passed by the Certificate Officer, whereby the Certificate Officer was pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for recall of the warrant of arrest. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition being W.P.(C). No.2379 of 2009, the petitioner received the impugned notice under Section 7 of Bihar & Orrisa Public Demand Recovery Act, whereby impugned certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 1/RT/ETS/09-10 was initiated for realization of road tax and additional tax for the same self vehicle for the period from 02.12.2003 to 01.03.2005. 8. However, during the pendency of this writ petition the said writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 2379 of 2009 has been disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2012 whose operative part reads as under:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 8. However, during the pendency of this writ petition the said writ petition being W.P.(C). No. 2379 of 2009 has been disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2012 whose operative part reads as under:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is not in dispute that against the notice issued under Section 7, the petitioner had filed objection under Section 9 of the Act. Against the said objection, some clarification was sought from the certificate holder and several adjournments were granted for that purpose, but that order was not complied with by the certificate holder. Suddenly the matter was taken up on 17th April, 2009 and the impugned order has been passed bypassing the mandatory provision of Section 10 of the Act. The impugned order is, thus, violative of Section 10 of the said act as well as the principle of natural justice and is wholly illegal and void. Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17th April, 2009 passed in Certificate Case No.2/RT/ETS/2007-08 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Certificate Officer for further proceeding and disposal of the case in accordance with law.” 9. From the perusal of the order dated 31.10.2012 it is apparent that the order dated 17.04.2009 passed in Certificate Case No.2/RT/ETS/2007-08 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Certificate Officer for further proceeding and disposal of the case in accordance with law. However, it is not clear from the records as to what happened thereafter before the Certificate Officer after the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in W.P.C. No. 2379 of 2009. 10. Counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the earlier order dated 31.10.2009 being W.P.(C). No. 2379 of 2009 submits that the certificate proceeding pursuant to such order is still pending before the Certificate Officer, in which the petitioner is participating but so far as the instant case is concerned for almost the same period another certificate case has been instituted which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. No. 2379 of 2009 submits that the certificate proceeding pursuant to such order is still pending before the Certificate Officer, in which the petitioner is participating but so far as the instant case is concerned for almost the same period another certificate case has been instituted which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that earlier for the period from 02.12.2003 to 01.09.2005, a certificate case was instituted bearing Certificate Case No. 2/RT/ETS 07-08 in connection with vehicle (bus) bearing Registration No. BPX 9020 and the respondents again for the period from 02.12.2003 to 01.03.2005 in connection with the same vehicle initiated another certificate case bearing no. 1/RT/ETS/2009-10. The subsequent certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 1/RT/ETS/2009-10 is under challenge in this writ petition. This Court finds that two certificate proceedings have been initiated for almost the same period in connection with the same vehicle, accordingly, the subsequent certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.1/RT/ETS/2009-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, it is hereby set-aside. The writ petition is hereby allowed and the proceeding in Certificate Case No.1/ RT/ETS/2009-10 is set-aside. However, the Certificate Case No. 2/RT/ETS/2007-08 shall be continued and decided by the Certificate Officer, Ghatshila. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Certificate Officer, Ghatshila and the Certificate Officer, Ghatshila is directed to take final decision in the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.