Orissa High Court
Lnk Arupananda Malik vs Union Of India And Others on 5 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17468 OF 2022
LNK Arupananda Malik Petitioner
Mr. Subash Chandra Pani, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel
(For Transport Department)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.07.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the
inaction of the Regional Transport Officer, Dhenkanal-
Opposite Party No.4 in accepting the NOC for change of
residence issued by the R.T.O., Pathankot in respect of vehicle
No.PB-35-S-8339 (Mcycle) insisting upon payment of
additional fee for delay in submission of the said NOC
pursuant to the amendment of Rule 81 of the Central Motor
Vehicle Rules,1989 (for short "the Rules').
3. It is submitted by Mr. Pani, learned counsel that the
Petitioner is the registered owner of Vehicle No.PB-35-S-
8339 (M-cycle) registered under the R.T.O., Pathankot. The
Petitioner applied for change of residence and the NOC
(Clearance Certificate) vide Annexure-2 series was issued by
the R.T.O., Dhenkanal on 18th March, 2014. As per law, the
Petitioner has to submit the said NOC within a period of thirty
days before the R.T.O., Dhenkanal for change of residence
// 2 //
from the date of its issue. However, the Petitioner could not
submit the same within the stipulated period and hence there
is delay in submitting the said NOC before the R.T.O.,
Dhenkanal. When the Petitioner approached the R.T.O.,
Dhenkanal and produced the NOC requesting him to accept
the same and change the address, the same was not accepted
insisting upon payment of additional fee in view of
amendment of Rule 81 of the Rules. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the amendment in Rules 32 and
81 of the Rules imposing additional fee has already been set
aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18124 of 2019 (Anirudha
Kumar Dash-vrs.- Union of India and others) and a batch of
writ petitions disposed of on 13th December, 2019, relevant
portion of which reads as under:
"13. After considering the entire fact situation of
the instant cases and submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, and after considering
Paragraph-8 of the judgment of the Madras High
Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that
there cannot be different implications of the same
notification in two different States. Therefore, to
maintain the uniformity, by following the judgment of
the Madras High Court, we also consider it
appropriate to struck down the amendment Rule 32
and Rule 81 of the Rules amended vide impugned
Notification No.G.S.R.1183(E) dated 29.12.2016
issued by the Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways, New Delhi, Government of India, to the
extent of imposition of additional fee only.
13.1 However, it is made clear that it will be subject
to final result of the appeal filed by the Union of India
before the Supreme Court. It is further clarified that if
ultimately the Government succeeds in the Supreme
Court, it will be open for the Government to recover
// 3 //
the amount of additional fees from the Petitioners
from the date of implementation of the notification."
4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the demand of additional fee to accept the NOC
for change of residence issued under Annexure-2 series is not
legal. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for a direction to
the R.T.O., Dhenkanal to accept the NOC issued under
Annexure-2 series without insisting upon payment of
additional fee under Rule 81 of the Rules.
5. Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for the
Transport Department submits that there is no material on
record to show that the Petitioner had, in fact, approached the
R.T.O., Dhenkanal for acceptance of NOC for change of
residence. He, however, does not dispute the position of law
as stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that
the matter is at present pending for consideration before
Hon'ble Supreme Court. He, however submits that if an
application is filed by the Petitioner along with the NOC
issued under Annexure-2 series complying with other
formalities, the same shall be considered by the R.T.O.,
Dhenkanal in accordance with law. The Petitioner should also
file an undertaking to the effect that, if Union of India
succeeds in the appeal pending before Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the Petitioner will be liable to pay the additional fee as
stated in Paragraph-13.1 of the aforesaid judgment.
6. Taking into consideration the submission made by
learned counsel for the Petitioner and the ratio in W.P.(C)
No.18124 of 2019 (Anirudha Kumar Dash) (supra), this
// 4 //
Court is of the considered opinion that the R.T.O., Dhenkanal
should accept the NOC for change of residence stated to have
been filed by the Petitioner without insisting upon payment of
additional fee in terms of Rule 81 of the Rules.
7. It is, accordingly, directed that in the event, the
Petitioner makes an application complete in all respect to
accept the NOC for change of residence issued by the R.T.O.,
Pathankot under Annexure-2 series within a period of two
weeks hence along with a copy of such NOC, the R.T.O.,
Dhenkanal shall do well to accept the same, which is stated to
have been submitted and do the needful in accordance with
law without insisting upon payment of additional fee for delay
in making such application. In view of the observation made
by this Court in paragraph-13.1 of the order in W.P.(C)
No.18124 of 2019 (Anirudha Kumar Dash) (supra), no
undertaking is required to be given by the Petitioner, as
submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for Transport
Department.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ
petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on
proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
bks
