Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sri Gururaj B Rao vs The Inspector Of Motor Vehicles on 12 December, 2014

Author: B.S.Patil

Bench: B.S.Patil

                                                   WP.56091/2014
                                 1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

                               BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

                   W.P.No.56091/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Sri Gururaj B.Rao,
S/o B.K.Balakrishna Rao
Aged about 30 years
r/at 55, 6th Cross, A Block,
Devaraj Urs Layout,
Davanagere-577 001.                        ... PETITIONER

(By Sri A.Ananda Shetty, Adv.)

AND:

   1. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles,
      Office of the Assistant R.T.O.
      Sagar-577 401,
      Shimoga District.

   2. The Assistant R.T.O.,
      Office of the Assistant R.T.O.
      Sagar-577 401,
      Shimoga District.

   3. The Sub-Inspector of Police,
      Soraba-577 429,
      Shimoga District.                    ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri H.V.Manjunatha, AGA)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the Check Report
dt.1.12.2014 issued by the respondent No.1 in No.201002 vide
Annexure-D and etc.
                                                     WP.56091/2014
                                 2




      This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the check report and the observations made therein including the seizure of his vehicle by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Assistant Regional Transport Office, Sagar, Shimoga District, on 01.12.2014, vide Annexure-D.

2. A perusal of Annexure-D discloses that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-B-0114 which is a contract carriage vehicle belonging to the petitioner herein was seized on the allegation that the permit covering the vehicle provided for seating capacity of 50 in all, but it was found on verification that the vehicle was fitted with 40 push back seats. As per the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report, the seating capacity did not comply with Rule 151(2) of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, hence, the registered owner of the vehicle was liable to pay tax at higher rates. As the driver of the motor vehicle failed to produce original Registration Certificate and other relevant documents, the motor vehicle was detained at Soraba for safe custody.

3

3. It is the case of the petitioner that arrears of tax was not quantified nor demanded. Petitioner was not provided with any opportunity to have his say in the matter and the seizure and detention of the vehicle in such circumstances has been proving detrimental to the interest of the petitioner as the vehicle would be subject to deterioration.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that provisions of Section 11 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'), and Rule 27-A of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules), have not been followed.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the relevant provision applicable is Section 8-B of the Act. He points out that the vehicle is virtually converted into All India Tourism Omni Bus by unauthorizedly reducing the seating capacity and is therefore, subject to higher tax and action in accordance with law deserves to be taken. He also points out that a notice has been issued to the petitioner to appear and produce the relevant documents.

4

6. It is unnecessary for this Court to go into the legal contentions raised by the respective parties. Petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent on 15.12.2014 at 11.00 a.m. and produce the relevant documents, whereupon the 2nd respondent shall take action in accordance with law. However, as regards the detention of the vehicle, as the Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is prepared to deposit the amount of tax, if quantified, without prejudice to his contention that there is no violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to tentatively quantify the amount of tax, receive the same if the petitioner is prepared to pay and immediately release the vehicle on such payment. The payment so made and the release of the vehicle would be subject to the result of further proceedings and final decision to be taken in the matter by the competent authority. Ordered accordingly.

8. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms stated above.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate shall communicate this order to the 2nd respondent immediately. WP.56091/2014 5

10. Registry is directed to make available a copy of this order to the learned Additional Government Advocate by hand.

Sd/-

JUDGE PKS