Jharkhand High Court
M/S Bla Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 5 May, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (T) No. 1579 of 2017
M/s BLA Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as
M/s Banowari Lal Agrawala (Pvt.) Ltd.) --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary,
Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand
2. District Transport Officer, Godda --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---
For the Petitioner: M/s Sudhir Sahay, Sanjay Piprawall, Advocates For the Resp.-State: Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to A.A.G-II
----
11 / 05.05.2022 Heard learned counsel Mr. Sudhir Sahay, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to learned A.A.G-II for the State.
2. For easy reference, order dated 15.03.2022 which encapsulates the case of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder:
"Petitioner is seeking quashing of demand notices dated 3rd September, 2016 and 15th September, 2016 with respect to the vehicles enumerated thereunder and mentioned in Paragraph-6 of the writ petition on the plea that petitioner- Company stepped into the shoes of M/s. Banwari Lal Agrawal (Pvt.) Ltd. which had scrapped those vehicles regarding which the demand has been raised. Writ petition is lacking in any averment as to how and under which provisions of Motor Vehicles Act/ Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1995 or Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 or Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1994, such vehicles were scrapped. Writ petition also does not show whether any intimation in terms of Section 55 of the Act was made to the Transport Authority for cancellation of its registration on the grounds permissible under Section 55 of the Act, 1988. However, petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondent to decide its representation, wherein petitioner has claimed that it is liable to pay only 50% of the demand in terms of Rules 17(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1994. The queries made hereinabove, does not have any answer in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short time to take instruction in this regard and file supplementary affidavit to that effect. Since writ petition is pending since, 2017, three weeks' time is granted and no more. If the affidavit is not filed within this period, the writ petition will be decided on its merit on the next date.
Learned counsel for the Respondent-State also may seek instruction, in the meantime, and if necessary file counter affidavit well in advance."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no supplementary affidavit has been filed pursuant to the order dated 15.03.2022. However, he 2. submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to pursue his representation before the District Transport Officer, Godda (Respondent No. 2) as his representation is yet not decided. He has referred to the order passed by this Court sitting singly (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) in W.P(C) No. 36/2017, wherein on similar facts, petitioner was allowed liberty to pursue his representation before the District Transport Officer, Godda.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State submits that the petitioner may be relegated to pursue his representation before the concerned Respondent authority.
5. Having considered the plea raised by the petitioner which is not accompanied with any supporting documents, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the Respondent No. 2 - District Transport Officer, Godda in respect of the demand raised with all explanation in law as well as on facts to seek exoneration from the liability. Needless to say, if such a representation is made within a period of two weeks from today, Respondent No. 2 would consider the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. If the petitioner is unable to justify exemption from liability on any lawful grounds, Respondent would proceed to recover the dues in accordance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Ranjeet/