Jagdish Prasad vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 1749 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 588 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Ksihor Gupta
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by Regional Transport Officer by which representation of the petitioner against the proceedings for recovery of tax against him has been rejected in respect of Vehicle No. UP78 AT 0753.

The petitioner had come earlier to this Court by filing writ petition No. 157 of 2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 25.01.2012. While disposing of the above writ petition, this Court has directed as follows:

"The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as also representative of Sri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited Kanpur within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the representation dated 5.1.2012 is filed before him.

For a period of six weeks or till representation is decided, whichever is earlier, recovery proceedings pursuant to the Citation dated 15.10.2011 impugned in the writ petition shall remain stayed and shall abide by the orders, which may be passed by the respondent no.2 on the petitioner's representation.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits."

After the order of this Court, Regional Transport Officer decided the representation dated 28.2.2012 of the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that although the vehicle in question was taken in possession by Financier on 9.10.2009 but Regional Transport Officer did not issue any notice to the Financier nor took their version on record. It has been specifically stated in the writ petition that the Financier was not heard.

A bare perusal of the order does not indicate that any notice was issued to the Financier or any consideration was made of the Financier's stand. This Court has already directed  the Regional Transport Officer to decide the representation of the petitioner, it is appropriate that the notice ought to have been issued and an opportunity ought to have been given to the Financier before deciding the matter.

In view of the above, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the writ petition pending or calling any counter affidavit. Ends of justice be served in setting aside the order dated 28.02.2012 and remitting the matter back to the Regional Transport Officer-respondent no. 2 to pass fresh order after giving notice to respondent no. 4.

Respondent no. 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Till decision of the representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 28.2.2012.

(Prakash Krishna,J)       (Ashok Bhushan,J)

Order Date :- 15.5.2012

MK/