Patna High Court
Rajiv Kumar Jha vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 23 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14572 of 2015
======================================================
Rajiv Kumar Jha S/o Shyama Kumar Jha R/o Ramesh Jha Road, Ganjala, P.S.
Saharsa, Distt. Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. District Magistrate, Supaul.
3. District Transport Officer, Supaul.
4. Smt. Neelam Devi W/o Late Ramesh Mishra
5. Deepak Mishra S/o Late Ramesh Mishra R/o Tiwari Tola, P.O., P.S. and
District Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-06-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the Writ
petition for the following reliefs:
"(i) ..... for quashing the
order dated 28.01.2015 (contained in
Annexure-11) and also the order passed
by the appellate authority under the
Motor Vehicle Act i.e. learned Collector,
Supaul, dated 9.6.15 (contained in
Annexure-12).
(ii) For grant of such other
relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest
of justice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
2/16
2. The brief facts as culled out of the Writ
petition are that the petitioner was the owner of a
bus bearing Registration No. DL 1 PA 0368 and had
paid all applicable taxes, up to date. The husband
of Respondent No. 4, i.e, father of Respondent No.
5 purchased the aforesaid bus for a total
consideration of Rs. 3,05,000/- On 23.01.2006, he
paid Rs. 2,05,000.00 and thereafter took
possession of the vehicle and began to operate it.
On 28.07.2006, he paid the remaining amount of
Rs. 1,00,000.00. On the same date, the sale was
completed, and the petitioner also signed all
relevant documents for the transfer of the vehicle
bearing Registration No. DL 1 PA 0368 in the name
of Ramesh Kumar Mishra. On that date itself, he
sworn an affidavit to the effect that:-
"यह कक कदनांक 23.01.2006 से ही गाडी का पकरचालन
मे रे दे ख-रे ख मे हो रहा है इसकलए गाडी पर ककसी तरह का कदनांक
23.01.2006
से केस मु कदमा, टै कस, कवगा एवं अनय गाडी से
जु डा है उसकी कजमे वारी मे री है ।"
3. It is further contended that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
(new purchaser) submitted relevant documents for
transfer of the vehicle and requested for a receipt
but the DTO office refused, citing the absence of a
system for issuing receipts for such transfers.
However, a certified copy obtained later
(Annexure-1 series) confirm that the said
documents were indeed received by the DTO,
Supaul. After submission of all necessary papers
and fees, the petitioner presumed the transfer
process would be completed in due course.
However, upon visiting the DTO office on
17.12.2009, he discovered the transfer had not
been effected. On inquiry, he was assured by the
then DTO that the matter would be promptly
addressed. An endorsement was made by the DTO
on the petitioner's application dated 17.12.2009
(Annexure-2), a certified copy of which is available
in the DTO's office records.
4. Following this, the DTO issued a notice
to Ramesh Kumar Mishra, calling upon him to
explain why, despite having purchased the vehicle
on 28.07.2006, he deposited the tax on
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
14.02.2007 in the name of the seller. He was
directed to appear before the DTO on 17.02.2010.
The DTO, instead of taking appropriate action,
appeared to favour the purchaser by merely
questioning his action, despite being aware that
tax payments in the name of the previous owner
are standard, until official transfer is recorded. It is
respectfully submitted that such conduct reflects
ignorance of the provisions under the Bihar Motor
Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994, as published in the
Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated 26.04.1994.
5. It is further submitted that upon learning
that no effective action had been taken by the
District Transport Officer (DTO) and only repeated
letters were being issued, the petitioner again
visited the DTO office and requested prompt
action. Subsequently, the DTO issued Memo No.
225 dated 18.08.2010, referring to earlier letters
dated 17.02.2010 and 04.06.2010, and directed
Ramesh Kumar Mishra to appear on 30.08.2010.
Again, Memo No. 53 dated 28.04.2011 was issued,
asking Ramesh Kumar Mishra to appear on
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
14.03.2011. Meanwhile, the DTO also issued a
notice to the petitioner, stating that although the
vehicle had been sold on 28.07.2006, tax had only
been deposited up to 14.02.2007, and directed him
to appear on 17.02.2010.
6. In response, the petitioner submitted a
written explanation, stating that the vehicle was
sold to Ramesh Kumar Mishra on 28.07.2006, and
all required documents were submitted to the DTO
on 01.08.2006, along with tax paid up to
14.08.2006 and the transfer fee of Rs. 300.00. He
further clarified that tax from 15.08.2006 to
14.02.2007 was deposited by the purchaser in the
seller's name, as the ownership transfer had not
yet been effected. The petitioner only learned of
the non-transfer on 17.12.2009 and since then
actively pursuing the matter. The DTO issued
Memo No. 146 dated 13.05.2010, and summoned
both parties to appear on 04.06.2010. The
petitioner appeared and submitted a written
statement reiterating the facts. Certified copies of
all documents submitted were later issued to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
petitioner by the DTO office.
7. Another Letter contained in Memo No.
54 dated 28.02.2011 was served on the petitioner,
informing him that although he had appeared
earlier, the purchaser had not and the petitioner
was directed to appear again on 14.03.2011.
Accordingly, the petitioner appeared on the said
date and submitted a detailed written reply
stating that all required documents and up-to-date
tax were submitted on 01.08.2006. The petitioner
emphasized the delay was due solely to inaction
by the DTO and non-cooperation from the
purchaser. As per Section 13 of the Bihar Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994, liability of paying
arrears for after the date of affidavit and
document submission (i.e., 01.08.2006) rests with
the purchaser. Due to the DTO's failure to effect
the transfer, tax continued to be paid in the
petitioner's name. Despite repeated notices, the
purchaser failed to appear, while the petitioner
remained present on every occasion.
8. Ultimately, finding the DTO office
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
favoring the purchaser and failing to take effective
action--while contemplating raising tax demands
against the petitioner--the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.
No. 234 of 2013 before this Hon'ble Court. This
Court on considering the contentions and merits of
both the parties passed a detailed order dated
15.12.2014 in CWJC No. 234 of 2013. For better
appreciation of the fact, the relevant part of the
aforesaid order is quoted hereinbelow:
"The document produced by the
petitioner as contained in Annexure-1
Series, which are certified copy of the
documents issued by the D.T.O., Supaul
himself, would leave nothing for
speculation that the records of the
application of the petitioner as produced
now by D.T.O., Supaul was not correctly
maintained in the office of the D.T.O.,
Supaul. This is a matter of serious concern
and the State Transport Commissioner
must address himself to the issue in hand
by initially holding an enquiry and if
necessary starting a departmental
proceeding against all the District
Transport Officers who had remained
posted as a District Transport Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
Supaul in between 1.8.2006 to the present
D.T.O., Supaul for fixing responsibility as to
the reason for keeping the application of
the petitioner for transfer pending from
1.8.2006. This court infact cannot even
conceive of a situation where an
application for transfer of a vehicle would
remain pending for a period over eight
years.
Coming to the order in question
dated 11.12.2014, this Court will have no
difficulty in holding that this order passed
in hurry by the present District Transport
Officer, Supaul cannot be sustained as it is
bad both on fact and in law. The same is,
accordingly, hereby quashed and the
matter is remitted back to the District
Transport Officer to hear the petitioner as
also the purchaser or his legal heir and
representative, inasmuch as, this Court
has been informed that the original
purchaser has already died.
This Court would, accordingly,
direct the petitioner to appear before the
District Transport Officer, Supaul on
5.1.2015 along with all the records and the
District Transport Officer, Supaul who
thereafter must pass his fresh final order
within a period of one month after
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the purchaser.
With the aforementioned
observation and direction, this application
is disposed of."
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that, in compliance with the order
dated 15.12.2014 passed in CWJC No. 234 of 2013,
the petitioner appeared before the District
Transport Officer, Supaul and submitted all
documents available with him.
10. The DTO, Supaul, for the first time,
vide order dated 28.01.2015 (pursuant to the
Court's direction), claimed that certain documents
were not submitted. However, prior to this, despite
repeated appearances and written applications by
the petitioner, the DTO never indicated that the
transfer could not be processed due to missing
documents. Further, during the lifetime of the
purchaser, no such objection was raised.
11. It is submitted that the DTO
disregarded the affidavit filed by the purchaser,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
wherein he undertook full responsibility for dues
and liabilities from the date of purchase (Annexure-
1 series). The petitioner submits that the DTO
acted with bias, ignoring documents submitted by
the purchaser and unjustifiably attempting to shift
blame onto the petitioner.
12. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector,
Supaul.
13. The Collector, by order dated
09.06.2015, dismissed the appeal, observing that if
the vehicle was sold on 28.07.2006, tax should not
have been paid up to 17.02.2007 in the
petitioner's name. The petitioner submitted that
this reflects a misinterpretation of law. Under
Section 5 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
1994 and the affidavit submitted by the purchaser,
the liability shifts to the purchaser. However,
unless registration is formally transferred, tax
payment in the seller's name continues by default.
This procedural reality appears to have been
overlooked by the authorities.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
14. The non-appearance of the purchaser's
legal heirs before the DTO cannot be held against
the petitioner. The purchaser had already
submitted the required documents and affidavit. As
per the definition of "owner" under the Bihar Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994, "Owner" means
every registered owner or the person having
possession or control of the motor vehicle.
Hence, the liability post-sale lies with the person in
possession, i.e., the purchaser or his legal
representatives.
15. In the instant case, the purchaser has
already given an affidavit before the DTO, that he
is in possession of the vehicle which is under his
control, which reads as follows:-
"यह कक कदनांक 23.01.2006 से ही गाडी का पकरचालन
मे रे दे ख-रे ख मे हो रहा है इसकलए गाडी पर ककसी तरह का कदनांक
23. 01.2006 से केस मु कदमा, टै कस, कबमा एवं अनय गाडी से
जु डा है उसकी कजममे वारी मे री है ।"
16. The contents of the purchaser's
affidavit clearly indicate that he had possession
and control over the vehicle and was liable to pay
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
all taxes. Accordingly, from 23.01.2006, the liability
stood transferred to the purchaser. However, for
reasons best known to the authorities, they failed
to properly consider the facts and the applicable
legal provisions.
17. The petitioner has no other efficacious
alternative remedy, he was constrained to file the
present writ petition for appropriate relief.
18. A detailed counter affidavit was filed
on behalf of the respondents contending that taxes
were paid by the petitioner up to 14.02.2007,
which contradicts his claim of having possession of
the vehicle on 23.01.2006. The affidavit allegedly
executed by the purchaser was never affirmed
before the authorities, despite repeated notices.
The purchaser never appeared personally, casting
serious doubt on the affidavit's authenticity.
Neither the petitioner nor the purchaser submitted
essential documents such as residential proof,
voter identity card, or the purchaser's photograph,
which is mandatory for processing vehicle transfer.
19. Mere submission of transfer form by
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
the seller and purchaser is insufficient. Both are
required to appear personally before the District
Transport Officer (DTO), Supaul. Despite several
notices, the purchaser failed to appear, raising
suspicion and obstructing the transfer process.
Due to prolonged delay and the purchaser's
continuous absence, multiple notices were issued
to both parties for clarification. However, the
purchaser remained absent, and this irregular
conduct further hindered the process. The DTO,
upon learning that the petitioner claimed to have
sold the vehicle on 28.07.2006 while continuing to
pay tax until 14.02.2007, rightly called upon the
petitioner to explain the discrepancy. The
petitioner responded on 17.02.2010, but the
purchaser's failure to appear created doubts about
the transfer. As the purchaser or his legal heirs
never appeared before the DTO or the Collector,
Supaul, despite repeated notices, the affidavit's
reliability was in question. Hence, the DTO could
not rely solely on it to effect the transfer. It is
noteworthy that during the pendency of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
petitioner's application, a pleader's notice dated
06.09.2011 was served upon the DTO by the
petitioner, stating that the vehicle had been sold to
a kabari (scrap dealer) and the same was
dismantled, further complicating the matter.
Pursuant to the Hon'ble Court's order dated
15.12.2014, the DTO reinitiated the hearing
process, issued fresh notices to the purchaser's
heirs, but they too failed to appear. In light of
continued non-appearance, and after affording
multiple opportunities, the DTO found the matter
suspicious and, vide order dated 28.01.2015,
rejected the petitioner's transfer application.
During the inquiry, it was also found that Shri
Krishna Kumar Yadav, then Head Clerk, had unduly
delayed placing the petitioner's application before
the DTO. Disciplinary proceedings were
recommended against him by letter no. 5027
dated 09.10.2015. A report was submitted to the
Registrar, Patna High Court, via letter no. 5117
dated 15.10.2015 by the Additional Secretary,
Transport Department, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
20. The authorities consistently required
the physical appearance of the purchaser and the
submission of all necessary documents, which was
never complied with, and the affidavit alone could
not be relied upon in law. The Collector, Supaul, by
a reasoned order dated 09.06.2015, considered all
aspects and rightly dismissed the petitioner's
appeal.
21.Heard the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record of the case.
22. It is apparent that the vehicle was sold
on 28.07.2006, the application was submitted on
17.12.2009, the prescribed fee was deposited on
31.07.2006, and taxes were paid up to 14.07.2007.
It appears that the respondent Transport
Department has been sitting tight over the matter,
and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated
28.01.2015, contained in Annexure-11, is hereby
quashed.
23. Accordingly this Writ application is
allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14572 of 2015 dt.23-06-2025
24. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.07.2025
Transmission Date
