Gulshan Kumar and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—Initially, in this writ petition, validity of Section 13B of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 was challenged by the petitioner while praying for other relief. Accordingly, the writ petition was listed before the Division Bench; but, later on, on 29.10.2007, learned Counsel for the petitioner withdrew the challenge to the validity of the aforesaid Section, therefore, the matter was sent to the Single Bench for adjudication.

According to the facts of the case, the petitioner purchased motor vehicle bus bearing registration No. RJ-07/P 3578 of 2002 model. The said vehicle was having all-India permit upto on or before 31.01.2005.

On 31.01.2005, respondent No. 4 submitted an application accompanied by the permit parts A and B and the competent authority vide its order dated 15.03.2005 accepted the surrender of the said permit with effect from 31.01.2005 while certifying that road tax upto 4/2005 (spare) and special road tax upto 31.01.2005 with effect from 19.03.2002, date of first registration in Rajasthan has been paid.

Upon issuance of the no objection certificate bearing No. 30598 under the signature of the assessing authority D.T.O., Bikaner respondent No. 2 transferred the ownership of the said bus in favour of the petitioners with effect from 11.04.2005. Respondent No. 2 also issued a letter dated 20.05.2006 regarding no tax dues and no challan pending in connection with the said vehicle.

The petitioners applied for issue of permit for the rout Suratgarh Thermal and they were granted the said permit which is valid upto 31.08.2010.

An application was filed by the petitioner on 29.09.2006 for cancellation of the said permit and in connection with that the Secretary, R.T.A. Issued a certificate of cancellation of the said permit on 10.10.2006. No objection certificate dated 28.09.2006 was also issued in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners they applied for issue of permit for particular contract carriage which came to be issued on 11.10.2006 but, all of a sudden, on 25.01.2007, the Motor Inspector, Sriganganagar verbally informed the petitioners that respondent No. 3 has issued letter to him that bus No. RJ-07/P 3578 had shifted in Gangangar district in pursuance to the interregional NOC No. 30598 dated 04.04.2005 issued from his office. Further, it was informed that losses of Rs. 4,75,560/-have been caused by the production of false NOC before him for the period from 7/02 to 6/03; 7/03 to 10/03; 2/04 to 4/04 and 7/04 to 9/04 and, that an FIR No. 90/02-06-2005 has been filed against the original owner of the vehicle, who is respondent No. 4, with the Police Station Jamnagar and civil suit is also pending against him in the Court of District Judge, Bikaner, therefore, the bus operating from his district may be seized as early as possible.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners by way of filing this writ petition submits that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the said vehicle. If any forgery is committed with regard to false receipts by the earlier owner they cannot be held responsible for the same. While issuing NOC by the District Transport Officer, the vehicle in question cannot be seized from the possession of the petitioners if any amount is to be recovered from the earlier owner respondent No. 4, therefore, the petitioners'' vehicle which has been purchased by them cannot be seized.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, during the course of arguments, pointed out that now this writ petition is not required to be further entertained because under the amnesty scheme the petitioners have deposited the amount and the vehicle is in their possession, therefore, now no relief can be granted to the petitioners because they have already deposited the amount under the amnesty scheme. Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute this position.

In this case, arguments were heard on 03.11.2008. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner on 06.11.2008 in which, again, it is prayed that after hearing of arguments in the matter, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 4 has got no movable or immovable property and there is no scope of recovery in case decree is passed against him. This fact was within the knowledge of the respondents but they seem to have not disclosed it. Further, in the application dated 06.11.2008 it is stated that some other aspects involved in the case which are relevant and important for the just decision of the controversy involved in the case are required to be considered and, therefore, it is prayed that opportunity for further arguments may be granted.

I have perused the application. In this case, admittedly during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner himself chose to seek remedy under the amnesty scheme and he has deposited the amount under the amnesty scheme and the vehicle in question is in his possession, therefore, in fact, as and when the petitioner took recourse to the amnesty scheme and deposited the amount this writ petition became infructuous. Moreover, this Court is not passing any order adverse against the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with the observation that if in the suit filed by the respondent Transport Department against respondent No. 4, civil Court will pass any decree against him, then, in that event, the petitioners will be entitled for refund of the amount which is deposited by them under the amnesty scheme. At this stage the petitioners themselves have deposited the amount under the amnesty scheme and the vehicle is in their custody and plying on road as per the permit issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the vehicle, therefore, no further direction is required to be issued except as mentioned hereinabove for refund of the amount paid by the petitioners under the amnesty scheme in the event of the suit filed by the Transport Department being decreed against respondent No. 4.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the terms indicated above. There shall however be no order as to costs.