Availability of alternative remedy through appeal process

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the petitioner’s vehicle (sleeper bus) bearing registration no. BR-02W-4567 which has been seized by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Lohardaga (the respondent no. 2) on 11.06.2021 under different provisions of the Jharkhand Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended vide Motor Vehicles Act, 2019) and Bihar (now Jharkhand) Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (in short, “the Act, 1994”) as amended vide Jharkhand Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 2001 on the allegation that the said vehicle was being plied without paying the road tax, without having permit & PUCC and alteration in the form of installation of 09 extra sleeper berths as well as in violation of the order issued by the Government of Jharkhand during Covid-19 pandemic period and thereafter the vehicle has been handed over to Kuru Police Station, Lohardaga.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, a copy of calculation sheet dated 18.06.2021 (annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.02.2022) prepared under the signature of the respondent no. 2 showing imposition of fine amount of Rs.4,19,650/- has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 26 of the Act, 1994 read with Rule 18 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1994 before the concerned Regional Transport Officer.

4. On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since thevehicle in question is commercial in nature and after seizure, the same is lying in Kuru Police Station, Lohardaga since 11.06.2021, the said vehicle may be at least ordered to be released, subject to the alternative recourses available under law which will be taken by the petitioner. It is also submitted that imposition of fine to the extent of Rs.4,19,650/- is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and excessive. The petitioner has otherwise a good case against imposition of such a huge fine by the respondent no. 2.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Section 26 of the Act, 1994 against imposition of fine by the respondent no. 2, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on merit at this stage.

6. However, if the petitioner deposits Rs.1,00,000/- against the imposition of amount of fine by the respondent no. 2 and prefers an appeal before the concerned Regional Transport Officer on or before 10.05.2022, the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner shall be released in his favour on his due identification. It is however observed that the said deposit shall be subject to the outcome of the appeal to be preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid direction.