Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Travels vs Ashutosh Bhadoriya on 22 August, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2022
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1123 of 2022
Between:-
MANISH TRAVELS THROUGH PROPRIETOR
MANISH KUMAR JAIN SON OF BHAGCHAND
JAIN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCCUPATION BUS
OPERATOR MINI MATA CHOWK PULGAON
DISTRICT PULGAON CG (CHHATTISGARH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH RAWAT-ADVOCATE)
AND
ASHUTOSH BHADORIYA REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICER SHAHDOL DISTRICT
SHAHDOL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR-ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the order dated 06.04.2022 passed in W.P. No. 351/2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that assailing order of seizure dated 09.12.2020 a vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-07-BW-9988 owned by the petitioner, was seized, the said petition was filed.
This Court while deciding Writ Petition concluded in paragraph 9 that the vehicle has been seized under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, Judaical Magistrate Class-I has jurisdiction to consider and decide the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/25/2022 12:42:07 PM 2 application for releasing of vehicle on Supurdnama.
Thus, this Court while disposing of the writ petition, remitted back the matter to Judicial Magistrate Class-I to consider and decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. This Court further observed that if it is found that there are arrears of payment of tax by the petitioner, then R.T.O. is at liberty to seize the vehicle under the provisions of M.P Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to order passed by this Court passed in W.P. No.351/2022 dated 06.04.2022 the petitioner moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, Shahdol. The said application for releasing the vehicle on Supurdnama was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2022 and thus, the Judicial Magistrate Class-I directed the Station House Officer, District-Shahdol to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on supurdgi, if the same is not required in any other case. Thereafter, the respondent Regional Transport Authority, Shahdol has issued a communication dated 11.05.2022 by which, the R.T.O., Shahdol has directed the Station House Officer Police Station, Gohparu, District Shahdol to inform the R.T.O. before handing over the vehicle on Supurdgi to the owner. The said communication contains the Registration numbers of petitioner's vehicle and that communication also reflects that there is an outstanding tax to the tune of Rs. 2,83,052/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the communication contained in Annexure C-2 has been issued in flagrant violation of the order passed by this Court dated 06.04.2022 passed in W.P. No. 351/2022. Learned counsel submits that once this Court remitted back the matter to JMFC and the JMFC, Shahdol passed order of releasing the vehicle on Supurdginama on Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/25/2022 12:42:07 PM 3 11.05.2022, over reaching the said order the RTO could not have issued the impugned communication dated 11.05.2022 (Annexure C-2). The learned counsel also submits that this Court had only granted liberty to the R.T.O. to seize the vehicle if there are arrears of payment of tax by the petitioner under the provision of MP Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. Thus, learned counsel prays that the respondent be punished for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the communication contained in Annexure C-2 is perused carefully, the same only reflects that the R.T.O. instructed Station House Officer Police Station, Gohparu District-Shahdol to not to release the vehicle on Supurdgi without intimating the office of Resignal Transport Officer inasmuch as there is outstanding tax in respect of vehicle concerned. Learned counsel submits that this Court also had extended the liberty to the RTO to seize the vehicle, if there are arrears of payment of tax by the petitioner. However, even vide Annexure C-2, the steps/proposed action, cannot be brought within the ambit of the seizure, thus, the contention of the petitioner is that the order has been issued in violation of the directives issued by this Court in original writ petition, is misconceived.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Annexure C-2 i.e. communication dated 11.05.2022 also reflects the registration number of another vehicle i.e. UP-70-GT-9947 in respect of which, the owner of that vehicle filed a petition before this Court without questioning the communication contained in annexure C-2 and this Court, vide order dated 21.06.2022 passed in W.P No. 1164/2022, has issued direction to the effect that if the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/25/2022 12:42:07 PM 4 therein deposits outstanding tax amount under protest with the R.T.O., Shahdol, the vehicle shall be released in his favour. Thus, the counsel submits that the instead of filing the Contempt petition, the present petitioner should also file the petition as the same has been filed by the owners of other vehicles and thus submits that the present contempt petition observes to be dismissed.
Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. To ascertain as to whether there is violation of the order passed by this Court, it would be appropriate to reproduce the operative paragraph of the order dated 06.04.2022 passed in W.P. No.351/2022 :-
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case writ petition filed by petitioner is allowed to the extent that matter is remanded back to Judicial Magistrate First Class to consider and decide the application of petitioner in accordance with law. If it is found that there is arrears of payment of tax by petitioner then R.T.O. is at liberty to seize the vehicle under the Provisions of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991.
A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph reflects that this Court remitted back the matter to Judicial Magistrate Class-I to consider and decide the application of petitioner in accordance with law. This Court further observed that if it is found that there are arrears of payment of tax by the petitioner then R.T.O. is at liberty to seize the vehicle under the provisions of MP Motor Yan Adhiniyam, 1991. Thus, Paragraph 10 is perused, carefully the same would reveal that this Court did not issue any direction to release the vehicle on supurdginama, on the contrary, this Court remitted back the matter to Judicial Magistrate Class-I to consider and decide the petitioner's application. The Judicial Magistrate Class-1 also vide order dated 11.05.2022, release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, if the same was not required in any other case. The operative para of communication C-3 of the order passed by JMFC is also reproduced there:-
vr% vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr vijk/k esa tIr'kqnk okgu dzekad lh-th- 07 ch- MCY;w- 9988 dh vU; izd j. k es Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/25/2022 12:42:07 PM 5 vko'; drk u gks rks ml s fof/ kor vkosn d Mkse kj fl ag jktiwr dks l qi qn sZx h ij fn; k tkosA Therefore, now if Annexure C-2 examined in the light of Annexure C-1, the same would reflect that C-2 is not an order by which the vehicle which is owned by the petitioner has been seized. On the contrary, there is a direction by Regional Transport Officer, Shahdol, to Station House Officer Police Station- Gohparu to not to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner unless an intimation is given to the Office of Regional Transport Officer and reason behind this communication is there is an outstanding tax to be paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,83,050/-. Thus, firstly, there are no direction by this Court to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner in order dated 06.04.2022 on the contrary, this Court vide order dated 06.04.2022 passed in W.P. No. 351/2022 remitted back the matter to Judicial Magistrate Class-I to consider and decide the petitioner's application. Moreover, this Court extended liberty to RTO to seize the vehicle if there are arrears of payment of tax. In the opinion of this Court Annexure C-2 dated 11.05.2022 is not an order of seizure of vehicle, though the same reflect that there is outstanding tax in respect of the vehicle concerned.
Thus, in the considered view of this Court it is not a case where any of the direction issued in order dated 06.04.2022 passed in W.P. No. 351/2022 has been violated. Thus, no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent is made out. However, the petitioner is at liberty to assail the communication dated 11.05.2022 contained in annexure C-2 while taking recourse to appropriate proceedings.
Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of and rule nisi is discharged.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/25/2022 12:42:07 PM 6(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE R Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/25/2022 12:42:07 PM