1007WP3363.15-Judgment 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3363 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Iqbal Khan Shafi Khan, Aged about 54 years,
Resident of Sanjay Ward, Seoni, Madhya
Pradesh.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
to Home Department (Transport),
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2. Transport Commissioner of the State of
Maharashtra, Administrative Building, 3 rd
and 4th Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Udyan,
Government Colony, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400051.
3. Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh through the
Ministry of Tranport, Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5. State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its Secretary.
6. Tax Officer and Regional Transport Office,
Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.C.Phadnis, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 10.07.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) Heard.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:40:41 :::
1007WP3363.15-Judgment 2/2 We find that the issue involved in the writ petition was also involved in a bunch of writ petitions that were decided by the Aurangabad Bench of this court on 11/03/2016. By the said judgment, the court had held that the respondents do not have the authority in law to levy and demand passenger tax at the rate of 70% of the load factor of the seating capacity of the passenger transport vehicle as it is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1958. After declaring so, it was held that 50% of the demanded tax that was paid by the petitioners in the said writ petitions during the pendency of the writ petitions in terms of the interim order shall be adjusted by the State Government towards the future liability of the petitioners.
Since the issue involved in this case stands answered in favour of the petitioners by the judgment dated 11/03/2016 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.4098 of 2014 and others, this writ petition also needs to be allowed.
Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment dated 11/03/2016 in Writ Petition No.4098 of 2014 and others, this writ petition is allowed. The declaration, granted by the judgment dated 11/03/2016 would cover the case of the petitioner herein. The amount that is deposited by the petitioner in terms of the interim order dated 19/06/2015 shall be adjusted by the State Government towards the past and future liability of the petitioner.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:40:41 :::