Back
2009 (II) OLR — 183
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. AND B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.
Bachan Singh...Petitioner
Versus
The Road Transport Officer, Rourkela, Sundargarh and Others...Opp. Parties
O.J.C. No. 2247 of 2002
Decided on 4th May, 2009.
2. PENALTY - Imposition of penalty is quasi-criminal in nature - It is imposed for failure to carry out a statutory obligation - Penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its statutory obligation. (Para - 8)
3. PENALTY - Imposition of - It is always on account of personal fault of the person concerned - It is always relatable to an offender - It is a personal liability and the same cannot be fastened on any person other than the offender. (Para - 9)
4. ORISSA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT, 1975 - Secs. 3, 3A, 4, 10 and 11 - Tax and additional tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use within the State at specified rate and, if any such tax has been paid in advance in respect of a motor vehicle and the said vehicle was not used after payment of the tax in advance for some period, the person who paid such tax is entitled to get refund of a portion of tax in respect of the period for which the vehicle was not in use, of course, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions as prescribed in Section 10.
The vehicle in respect of which prior intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of the vehicle is to be furnished before the taxing authority, as re¬quired under Section 10, must have registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit and tax token. Section 10 requires that whenever any motor vehicle is not intended to be used for any period, the registered owner or person having control or possession thereof shall on or before expiry of the term for which tax has been paid shall deliver to the Taxing Officer an undertaking in the prescribed form along with registration cer¬tificate, fitness certificate, permit and tax token. The head note of the Section “prior intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of the vehicle” itself shows that prior intimation is in respect of a vehicle which is in use and intended not to be used temporarily. The further requirement of Section 10 is that under¬taking shall be delivered to the Taxing Officer on or before the date of expiry of the term for which tax has been paid, which makes it clear that at the time of furnishing prior intimation by delivering an undertaking, the vehicle is fit for plying in all respects and is in use and tax has been paid in advance. Thus, owner of a vehicle or a person having possession or control thereof can deliver undertaking to the Taxing Officer as required under Section 10 only when he is in possession of registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit and tax token in respect of the vehicle concerned, which is in use or kept for use.
(Paras - 13 and 14)
5. ORISSA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1993 - Rule 84(2) - An application for grant of permit shall be accompanied by motor vehicle documents like, registration certificate, fitness certificate and insurance certificate along with the tax clearance certificate in respect of the motor vehicle obtained from the taxing authority.
(Para - 14)
6. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 226 and 227 - State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Sec. 29 - Purchase of seized vehicle - Transfer of ownership - Refusal by RTO on the ground that amount outstanding against the vehicle in question had not been paid by the previous owner - Writ - Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the arrears of tax and penalty due from the previous owner of the vehicle ? - Whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax and penalty for post-auction period ? - Discussing the facts, contention, provisions of law and ratio laid down in cited cases held, petitioner is not liable to pay arrears of penalty payable by the previous owner - Petitioner is also not liable to pay tax and penalty for the post-auction period.
However, only on payment of arrears of tax payable by the previous owner that remained unpaid on the date of purchase of the vehicle in auction, the ownership of the vehicle shall be transferred by the R.T.O. in favour of the petitioner subject to fulfilment of other condition(s), if any, as required by law. (Para - 16)
JUDGMENT
B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — In this writ petition, the peti¬tioner challenges the action of the R.T.O., Rourkela, Sundargarh-O.P. No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the R.T.O.’), refusing to transfer the ownership of Truck bearing Registration No.OR-14-C-7343 in the name of the petitioner, who purchased it in auction from the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) and to issue road permit for non-payment of arrears of tax outstanding against the said vehicle prior to the date of auction on the ground that such action of the R.T.O. is illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this peti¬tion are that one Rajib Kumar Pratihari availed a loan from the Corporation and purchased a Tata Truck bearing Registration No. OR-14-C-7343. As there was default in repayment of the loan to the Corporation, possession of the vehicle was taken over by the corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SFC Act’) on 15.12.2001. After seizure of the vehicle, a notice for sale of the vehicle was published on 12.01.2002 in “The Anupam Bharat”. In the meeting of Disposal-cum-advisory Committee held on 29.01.2002, the petitioner on negotiation agreed to purchase the vehicle for a consideration of Rs.2.50 lakhs. The Corporation having accepted the offer of the petitioner issued a sale letter in his favour on 31.01.2002 (Annexure-1). Pursuant to the said sale letter, petitioner paid Rs.1.50 lakhs including earnest money immediately and executed necessary documents to secure the balance amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. After completion of all the formalities, Assistant Manager (Legal) of the Corporation issued a sale memo dated 01.02.2002 (Annexure-2) in favour of the peti¬tioner authorizing him to take all necessary steps for transfer of ownership in his favour. The Branch Manager of the Corporation (O.P.No.3) issued a vehicle release order dated 01.02.2002 (Annexure-3) in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of which the vehicle was released in his favour on 03.02.2002. The Branch Manager of the Corporation also issued a request letter vide Letter No. 2644 dated 01.02.2002 (Annexure-5) to the R.T.O. to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the R.T.O. for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question in his favour by submitting all necessary forms along with the letter dated 01.02.2002 issued by opposite party no.3. The petitioner also deposited requisite fees (Annexure-6 series) on 08.02.2002 with the R.T.O. for transfer of the ownership in his favour and for grant of the road permit. But the R.T.O. refused to transfer the ownership of the vehicle on the ground that an amount of Rs.94,000/- outstanding against the vehicle in question had not been paid by the previous owner. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that immediately after purchase of the vehicle in auction the petitioner submitted necessary forms before the R.T.O. and also paid requisite fees for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in his favour and for road permit. The R.T.O. should not have refused to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, who became the owner of the said vehicle after purchasing it in auction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of tax and penalty by the previous owner, whose vehicle was seized by the Corporation under Section 29 of the SFC Act. Refusal by the R.T.O. to transfer the vehicle in the name of the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to deliberate harassment to the petitioner for no fault on his part.
She further submitted that under no circumstances the peti¬tioner should have been asked to pay the penalty, which was imposed on the previous owner of the vehicle. Referring to the letter dated 31.01.2002 (Annexure-1), Mrs. Jena submitted
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
