Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 792 (HP)

Jagjit Singh v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-02

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner with the following prayers: "(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to renew the route permit of the petitioner with respect to Bus No. HP-13A-5151 for a period of five years as is done in all other cases in the interest of law and justice. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to transfer the route permit with respect to Bus No. HP-13A-5151, JutogSanjauli-via Bus Stand-5RT and by further quashing the proceeding of the meeting of Regional Transport Authority held on 23.05.2017, particularly with respect to item No. 8, whereby the case of the petitioner was considered and the case of transfer was not accepted. (iii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed not to charge any token tax from the petitioner for the period when the vehicle was not being plied, particularly for which the recommendations have already been made by Registration and Licensing Authority-cumSub Divisional Magistrate, Rural vide various communications in the interest of law and justice. (iv) That an appropriate compensation may very kindly be ordered to be granted to the petitioner, particularly for the fact that the bus of the petitioner was kept away for a period of four months. It is submitted that the petitioner has suffered a minimum loss of Rs. 2 lakhs for these four months, thus, directions may very kindly be issued to respondents to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs for unlawfully suspending the route permit of the bus belonging of the petitioner." 2. Reply to the writ petition, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 has been filed, wherein it has been averred that in compliance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court on 15.11.2017, the permit of Bus Number HP13A-5151 has already been renewed upto 17.01.2018. However, if the petitioner intends to get the permit renewed on regular basis, he has to complete all codal formalities, as provided under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in this regard the directions has already been issued to the petitioner by the replying respondents to produce Tax clearance of old Bus Number HP-51B-2529 from respondent No. 4. It has been further averred that replying respondents has not rejected any application of the petitioner for the renewal of permit, however each and every time the petitioner was directed to fulfill the codal formalities, but he failed to complete such formalities and in compliance of the orders of this Hon''ble Court, the permit was renewed time to time on temporary basis. 3. As per the replying respondents, in compliance to the orders, passed in CWP No. 3250 of 2015, the matter was placed before the RTA in its meeting held on 30.08.2016 and RTA decided to renew the permit of bus subject to deposit of compounding fee to the tune of Rs. 10, 000/- and clearance of outstanding dues/completion of formalities and so far as regular renewal of permit is concerned, due to non production of NOC of old vehicle Number HP-51B-2529, it was not done by the replying respondents as yet. As far as the execution of sale agreement is concerned, the petitioner was himself responsible for such agreement, as he has not verified the taxes of old vehicle from the previous owner and purchased the bus. It was his sole responsibility to verify these facts/formalities before purchasing the bus and execution of such agreement. It has been further averred in the reply that the representation of the owner of the bus for the exemption of taxes, has already been taken up by the Department with the State Government, as provided under the provisions of Section 14(3) of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1972, in which only the State Government is competent to accord exemption. 4. Respondent No. 4 has also filed reply, wherein it has been admitted that the petitioner sought exemption of token tax in respect of vehicle No. HP-51B-2529 for the period of 01.07.2009 to 30.06.2016 and the same was sent by Registering and Licensing Authority Shimla (Rural) to Director of Transport, as per Annexure P-2. The replying respondent also admitted the correctness of Annexures P-2, P-4 to P-7 and averred that final decision of Transport Department is still awaited. The replying respondent also admitted the correctness of Annexures P-2, P-4 to P-7 and averred that final decision of Transport Department is still awaited. As per respondent No. 4, the petitioner is himself responsible for his own acts and deeds and he has not intimated the Registering and Licensing Authority Shimla (Rural) qua loss of Registration Certificate of Vehicle No. HP51B-2529, as well submitted RC of vehicle for seeking exemption, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that since the vehicle in question was not plied, there is no question of paying token tax, neither the State can raise the demand of token tax. He has further argued that token tax is only charged on yearly basis and it is known to the respondents that the vehicle of the petitioner was not plied for want of route permit, which was not issued by the respondents. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate General has argued that as the RC was not deposited with the Licensing Authority, therefore as per Rules, till the time RC is deposited, the owner is liable to pay token tax. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 7. It is on record that the RC of the petitioner has been lost. The Office of the Registering and Licensing Authority-cum-SDM, Shimla (Rural) in its letter to the Director Transport, H.P., (Annexure P-5) , has mentioned that the said vehicle could not be plied without route permit which has expired on 02.09.2010. The contents of the letter are reproduced as under :- "No. SDS-MLC/2017- Office of the Registering & Licensing Authority-cum- SDM, Shimla Rural, District Shimla (HP) Telephone No. 0177-2657009 Dated: Shimla-171001, the         February, 2017 To The Director Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171004 Subject: Application for settlement of Token Tax in respect of vehicle No. HP51B-2529 Sir, Kindly refer to your office letter No. STA-43- 22/72/Shimla-10651332 dated 24-01-2017 on the subject cited above. In this Context, Shri Jaswant Singh, S/o Shri Sher Singh, R/o Devki Kala Building, Dhana, Tehsil and District Shimla has requested to waive off the token tax of vehicle No. HP51B-2529 w.e.f. 20-08-2011 to till date on the analogy as Special Road Tax has been waived off after 19-08-2011 by the Regional Transport Authority, Shimla. In this Context, Shri Jaswant Singh, S/o Shri Sher Singh, R/o Devki Kala Building, Dhana, Tehsil and District Shimla has requested to waive off the token tax of vehicle No. HP51B-2529 w.e.f. 20-08-2011 to till date on the analogy as Special Road Tax has been waived off after 19-08-2011 by the Regional Transport Authority, Shimla. The owner of vehicle Shri Jaswant Singh has given affidavit to the effect that vehicle has not plied after expiry of his route permit "ShimlaJutogh-5RT" on 02-09-2010 and he is ready to pay token tax upto 19-08-2011 similarly as paid SRT upto 19-08-2011. It is pertinent to mention here that neither owner of vehicle has deposited/surrendered RC in this office nor given any intimation about loss of vehicle documents in this office and further shown his ignorance about deposit/surrender of RC with concerned authority on expiry of route permit, however it is very much clear that said vehicle could not be plied without route permit which has expired on 02-09-2010 and further he has made a long battle through court of law for renewal of his route permit. In view of above, it is requested that token tax of vehicle No. HP51B-2529 may kindly be waived off w.e.f. 20-08-2011 onwards so that the matter regarding settlement of token tax could be disposed off and recovery of token tax due up to 19-08-2011 could be done. The all relevant papers are enclosed herewith for reference & necessary action please. Yours faithfully, Ecls: ( ) (Gian Sagar Negi) o/c Registering & Licensing Authority-cum- SDM, Shimla Rural, District Shimla (HP) " 8. Thereafter, check list for exemption of token tax was asked by the Office of the Director Transport and the same was supplied vide Annexure P-7, column 16 whereof reads as under: "16. Whether exemption is justified under the Act/Rules in public interest give reasons for justification by RTO. Which was answered as under: Since the owner was in legal dispute with transport Deptt. regarding issue of route permit as such in the absence of permit he was not in position to ply the vehicle." From this, it clear that as the Transport Department had already waived off the SRT for the reason that the vehicle was not plied, so this Court finds that the petitioner is not liable to pay token tax for the period, the vehicle could not be plied. 9. 9. Accordingly, present is a fit case, where respondents are required to be directed not to charge token tax from the petitioner, for the period he has not plied his vehicle and accordingly, the respondents are directed to renew the permit of the petitioner, with respect to the Bus No. HP-13A-5151, without insisting upon the payment of token tax for the period, the bus was not plied for want of route permit. As far as transfer of route permit is concerned, the respondents shall take decision as per Rules, after waiving off token tax for the period vehicle was not plied for want of route permit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to costs. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition, as also pending application(s) , if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.