Saiyyed Yusuf Ali S/O. Saiyad ... vs State Of Maha., Through Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7497 Bom

                                                                                            wp5675.15.odt

                                                          1




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




                                                                    
                                     WRIT PETITION NO.5675/2015

         PETITIONER:                Saiyyed Yusuf Ali s/o Saiyad Masid Ali




                                                                   
                                    aged about 45 years, Occ. - Business, 
                                    r/o Ward No. 24, Jakir Hussain Ward, Garg Colony, 
                                    Distt. Betul, Madhya Pradesh.

                                                       ...VERSUS...




                                                   
         RESPONDENTS :   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.
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





                           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

wp5675.15.odt

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