Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 September, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 JHA 1691
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2584 of 2021
-----
Vijay Kumar Shukla .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ranchi.
3. District Transport Officer, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : M/s Sudhir Sahay and
Mitul Kumar, Advocates
For the State : Mr. J. F. Toppo, S.C.VII
-----
Order No.03 Date: 30.09.2021
This case is taken up through video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of seizure passed by the respondent no.2, as contained in memo no.0004809 dated 9th June, 2021, in connection with a passenger bus of the petitioner bearing Registration No.JH-01CC 4551, which has allegedly been seized for contravention of Sections 203, 177, 179, 192(1), 56 and 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 28(1) of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 2001.
Though in the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent no.2 in seizing the vehicle in question, however, Mr. Sudhir Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the writ petition, submits that since the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle, the same may be ordered to be released subject to other recourses being available to the petitioner under law. It is also submitted that the prosecution report annexed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents suggests that an amount of Rs.5,39,577/- is due towards tax to be paid for the said vehicle, however, the details of the same has not been mentioned therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has already paid the updated tax to the State Government and is not required to pay any amount much less the amount shown in the prosecution report. The detail of the said amount has also not been mentioned in the counter affidavit.
-2-Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, which is confined to the release of the vehicle in question, without entering into rival contentions of the parties, if the petitioner pays Rs.2.70 lacs (approx. 50% of due amount of tax) to the State Government against the aforesaid due amount of tax, the vehicle of the petitioner shall forthwith be released by the competent authority on furnishing the proof of the said payment.
It is made clear that the payment of the said amount by the petitioner shall be provisional in nature only for the purpose of release of the vehicle and the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse against the same before the appellate authority within one month from the date of the order. The remaining amount of tax shall be subject to outcome of the appeal. If no appeal is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the amount of tax so demanded from the petitioner will be treated as final, which he will be liable to pay.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/