Abhisek Pani vs Sambit Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 4191 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   CONTC No.5774 of 2022
                 Abhisek Pani                           ....       Petitioner
                                        Mr. Braja Mohan Sarangi, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                 Sambit Kumar, Regional Transport       ....      Opp. Party
                 Officer, Jajpur
                                                      Mr. Pravakar Behera,
                                 Standing Counsel for Transport Department
                            CORAM:
                           JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                          ORDER

Order No.                                24.04.2023
 1.         1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated 27th May, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.12814 of 2022 has filed this Contempt Application.

3. The writ petition was disposed of with the following direction:-

"6. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the ratio of the judgment referred to supra, opposite party no.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner so far as transfer of ownership is concerned by complying Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, in the light of the said judgment and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

7. Let the petitioner produce a copy of this order along with a copy of the judgment in Bachan Singh (supra) before opposite party no.1, who shall act upon the same."

It is submitted by Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the authorities are not accepting arrear tax in respect of Vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-04-N-5789. Unless the arrear tax is accepted, the authority will not be in a position to act in accordance with Section 51 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act,

// 2 //

1988 (for short, 'the Act'). He, therefore, submits that the authorities by not accepting the arrear tax in respect of the aforesaid vehicle, have committed contempt of Court.

4. Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for Transport submits that there is no direction by this Court in the aforesaid order to accept the arrear tax from the Petitioner. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, process has already been initiated to transfer the ownership complying with the provision under Section 51(5) of the Act. As such, there is no violation of order of this Court, as alleged.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that there is no direction to accept the arrear tax in respect of the vehicle in question. However, to consider the transfer of the vehicle in question in favour of the auction purchaser (the Petitioner), arrear tax in favour of the aforesaid vehicle should be paid. It is submitted by Mr. Behera, learned Standing counsel for Transport, notices have already been issued to the registered owner in terms of Section 51(5) of the Act. Once, the response is received, application under Section 51(5) of the Act, shall be processed and steps with regard to transfer of ownership will be taken. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that there is no violation of order, as alleged. However, the authorities should take appropriate steps at the earliest to avoid further complicacies.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the CONTC is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy