Mrs. Tasneem Khan W/O Haji Shamin ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4255 Bom

 1007WP5954.15-Judgment                                                                         1/2


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

                      WRIT PETITION NO.  5954  OF    2015

 PETITIONER :-                        Mrs.   Tasneem   Khan   wife   of   Haji   Shamim
                                      Khan, Aged about 57 years, Occ. - business,
                                      Resident of Mahaveer Ward, Multai, District
                                      Betul, 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.       
 Deleted as per order            4. State of Madhya Pradesh through the
 dtd. 10/07/2017.                   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.

1007WP5954.15-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

27/10/2015 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