Saiyyed Yusuf Ali vs State Of Maharashtra ...

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 7500 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 December, 2016

Bombay High Court
Saiyyed Yusuf Ali vs State Of Maharashtra ... on 20 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                                                            wp5715.14.odt

                                                          1




                                                                                              
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                    
                                     WRIT PETITION NO.5715/2014

         PETITIONER:                Saiyyed Yusuf Ali




                                                                   
                                    aged about 44 years, Occ. - Business, 
                                    r/o Heena Bus Services, Ganj Betul
                                    Distt. Betul, Madhya Pradesh.

                                                       ...VERSUS...




                                                   
         RESPONDENTS :   1.  State of Maharashtra, through its 
                             
                              Secretary, State Transport Authority, 
                              Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 
                            
                                    2.  Commissioner Transport, Administrative 
                                         Building, 3rd  and 4th Floor, Bandra (E), 
                                         Mumbai - 51. 

                                    3.  Regional Transport Officer, Amravati (Rural), 
      

                                         through Office of Govt. Pleader, High Court, 
                                         Nagpur.
   



                                     4.  The Secretary, State Transport Authority, 
                                          Moti Mahal, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Shri Rahul Khade, Advocate for petitioner 





                           Mrs. B.H. Dangre, G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK, AND
                                                                          MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 20.12.2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Heard.

The issue involved in this case was also involved in a bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.4098/2014 and others and the ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:38:19 ::: wp5715.14.odt 2 Division Bench at Aurangabad has, by the judgment, dated 11.3.2016 allowed the writ petitions after declaring that the respondents have no authority in law to levy and demand the passenger tax @ 70% of the load factor of the seating capacity of the passenger transport vehicle. It appears that while allowing those writ petitions, the State Government was directed to adjust the amount that was deposited by the petitioners in those writ petitions, in terms of the interim order towards the tax payable in future. Since the issue involved in this writ petition and the decided writ petitions is identical, it would be necessary to pass a similar order in this writ petition.

Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment, dated 11.3.2016 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.4098/2014 and others, it is hereby declared that the respondents do not have any authority in law to levy and demand the passenger tax @ 70% of the load factor of the seating capacity of the passenger transport vehicle. The respondents are free to adjust the amount deposited by the petitioner in terms of our interim orders towards the tax that would be liable to be paid by the petitioner, in future.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                           JUDGE                                                         JUDGE
         Wadkar




    ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2016                                  ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2016 01:38:19 :::