WP 6924/15 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 6924/2015
Yogesh s/o Narayanrao Pote,
aged about 40 years, Occ.-business,
R/o. Prabhudhana, Chunaloma, Betul,
Dist.-Betul, Madhya Pradesh. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra, Mumbai.
2. Commissioner of Transport,
Administrative Building, 3rd and
4th Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Udyan,
Government Colony, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051.
3. Regional Transport Officer,
Nagpur (Rural), Lal Godown, Indora
Square, Infront of Police Head Quarters,
Nagpur.
4. The Secretary,
State Transport Authority, Motimahal,
Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS
Shri R.D. Khade, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Harshada Prabhu, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 5 TH JUNE, 2017.
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 of 2014 and others and the Division Bench at Aurangabad has, by the judgment, dated 11.03.2016, ::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:29:32 ::: WP 6924/15 2 Judgment 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 11.03.2016 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.4098 of 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
APTE
::: Uploaded on - 09/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2017 00:29:32 :::