Bombay High Court
Pradeep Sharma Krishnamurari ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 29 March, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
wp10712-15&group
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10712 OF 2015
1] Pradeep Sharma S/o Krishnamurari Sharma,
Age 52 years, Occ-Transport Business,
R/o H.No. 58/1, Shantipura, Dewas (M.P.)
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary to Home Department
(Transport), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2] The Transport Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Administrative
Building, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
3] The Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
4] The State of Madhya Pradesh through
the Ministry of Transport,
Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5] The State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its Secretary.
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pramod F. Patni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 served.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2638 OF 2015
1] Narbadalal S/o Pannalal Gupta,
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:56:56 :::
wp10712-15&group
-2-
Age 53 years, Occ-Transport Business,
R/o A-66, Old Indira Colony,
Burahanpur (M.P.) ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary to Home Department
(Transport), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2] The Transport Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Administrative
Building, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
3] The Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
4] The State of Madhya Pradesh through
the Ministry of Transport,
Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5] The State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its Secretary.
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pramod F. Patni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr.V.M.Kagne AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 served.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2654 OF 2015
1] Narbadalal S/o Pannalal Gupta,
Age 53 years, Occ-Transport Business,
R/o A-66, Old Indira Colony,
Burahanpur (M.P.) ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:56:56 :::
wp10712-15&group
-3-
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary to Home Department
(Transport), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2] The Transport Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Administrative
Building, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
3] The Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
4] The State of Madhya Pradesh through
the Ministry of Transport,
Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5] The State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its Secretary.
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pramod F. Patni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 served.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5928 OF 2015
1] Subhash S/o Sitaram Bhadane,
Age 50 years, Occ-Transport Business,
R/o Gawshinde Nagar, Khargone,
Dist. Khargone (M.P.) ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary to Home Department
(Transport), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2] The Transport Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Administrative
Building, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony,
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:56:56 :::
wp10712-15&group
-4-
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
3] The Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
4] The State of Madhya Pradesh through
the Ministry of Transport,
Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5] The State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its Secretary.
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pramod F. Patni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 served.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8659 OF 2015
1] Pawan S/o Ashok Arora,
Age 28 years, Occ-Business,
R/o Vinay Nagar Sector, No.2, Gwalior (M.P.)
Through his G.P.A. Vijaykumar S/o Kunjilal
Bhaat, Age 40 years, Occ-Business,
R/o C-9, B, Dwarikapuri Near Khodapati Mandir,
Gwalior (M.P.)
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary to Home Department
(Transport), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2] The Transport Commissioner,
Maharashtra State, Administrative
Building, 3rd and 4th Floor,
Dr. Ambedkar Udyan, Government Colony,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:56:56 :::
wp10712-15&group
-5-
3] The Secretary, State Transport Authority,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
4] The State of Madhya Pradesh through
the Ministry of Transport,
Mantralaya, Bhopal.
5] The State Transport Authority of Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior, through its Secretary.
.. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Pramod F. Patni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 served.
ig ...
CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE &
V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.
DATED : 29TH MARCH,2016
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER V. L.ACHLIYA,J.] :-
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of the parties, Petitions are taken up for final hearing at
admission stage.
2] We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AGP for respondents no.1 to 3. Respondents no.4 and 5
though served, remained absent. In nut shell, it is contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the
petition is identical to group of writ petitions decided alongwith Writ
Petition No.4098/2014 vide judgment and order dated 11th March,
2016 decided by Division Bench of this Court (Coram : R.M.Borde
and A.I.S.Cheema,JJ.) and the issue involved in the petition is
squarely covered by said decision. The learned AGP appearing for
wp10712-15&group
respondents no.1 to 3 fairly conceded that the issue involved in the
petitions is squarely covered by the said decision.
3] We have perused the petition as well as copy of the said
judgment. We have thoroughly considered the submissions
advanced in light of the decision in Writ Petition No.4098/14. The
issue raised in the petition that the respondents have no authority in
law to levy and demand passenger tax at the rate of 70% of the load
factor of seating capacity of passengers transport vehicle since it is
contrary to law and provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation
of Passengers) Act, 1958
ig was dealt at length in Writ Petition
No.4098/2014 and group of other petitions decided vide judgment
and order dated 11th March, 2016. The Division Bench of this Court
has held as under :
"11] For the reasons recorded above, Writ Petitions
deserve to be allowed and the same are accordingly
allowed. Respondents have no authority in law to
levy and demand passenger tax at the rate of 70% of
the load factor of seating capacity of passenger
transport vehicle since it is contrary to provisions of
the Act of 1958, as well as impermissible for the
reasons set out above. Respondents - State
authorities shall not demand passenger tax on
computation of 70% of load factor of the seating
capacity of the passenger transport vehicle and shall
levy and collect tax strictly in accordance with the
provisions of Bombay Motor Vehicles [Taxation of
Passengers] Act, 1958.
12] Respective counsel for the petitioners, on
wp10712-15&group
instructions, state that in terms of the directions
issued by this Court during the pendency of these
petitions, petitioners continued to deposit 50% of the
amount as claimed from them and, the amount so
paid shall be appropriated by the State towards past
liability in respect of demand of tax. Petitioners do
not have any specific objection for appropriation of
the amount which they have deposited during the
pendency of the petitions towards tax and, in future,
levy and recovery of tax shall be in accordance with
the Act of 1958. State Government shall be entitled
to the amount deposited / to be deposited in view of
interim orders which were passed during pendency
of these petitions and to take further appropriate
decisions in respect of recovery of past
liability/difference of the petitioners as per rules
relied on by the petitioners themselves and referred
above."
4] Thus the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by
said decision. We therefore, allow the Petitions in terms of the
judgment and order dated 11th March, 2016 delivered by Division
Bench of this Court (Coram : R.M.Borde and A.I.S.Cheema,JJ.) in
Writ Petition No.4098/14 alongwith connected petitions.
5] Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(V.L.ACHLIYA,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.)
umg/
