By the Court.—The appellant has come up in appeal impugning the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th November, 2009 in a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing several orders including the order dated 12th March, 1992 passed by the Taxing Officer in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 35 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1935’).

2. The appellant purchased a Bajaj Priya Scooter bearing Registration No. UTY - 6354 in the year 1980. After purchase of the said vehicle, he got it registered, and on account of some faulty mechanism, he sent it for repairs to the dealer from where he had purchased the Scooter. The Scooter remained with the dealer for a period of almost six months and there appears to be some dispute with regard to the repairs of the vehicle and its payment between the appellant and the dealer. The said dispute travelled to the Civil Court where the appellant instituted Original Suit No. 257 of 1982 against the Scooter dealer claiming relief of a mandatory injunction in respect of the possession of the Scooter and for damages. The suit was decreed and the defendant Scooter dealer was directed to deliver the Scooter to the plaintiff, appellant herein, together with certain damages vide order dated 29th March, 1985. The Scooter, according to the appellant, remained in disuse and the registration documents were surrendered in the year 1992 under the provisions of the then Motor Vehicles Act. According to the appellant, he could not use the Scooter for these eleven years and, therefore, he had also applied to the Regional Transport Officer on 10th August, 1985 through the District Magistrate, Allahabad to waive the road tax since 1.1.1981 onwards. This was followed by another application on 22nd May, 1990 intimating the Regional Transport Officer about the decree of the Civil Court and again making a request for waiver of the tax. The appellant repeated his performance by another application dated 12th March, 1992 again requesting the Regional Transport Officer to waive the tax. The Taxing Officer passed an order on 12.3.1992 on the said application to the following effect :

“T.K.

okgu Lokeh dks great length ij lquk x;kA budh ckr esa cy gks ldrk gS fdUrq dj ekQ djuk lEHko ugha gSA

vr% ns; dj :0 15@& 'kkfjr ds lkFk tek djk fy;k tk,A

sd/- S.R. Tripathi

12.03.92"

3. It is this order dated 12th March, 1992 which is the centre of dispute in the present proceedings.

4. Having failed to get any relief from the authority/Taxing Officer, it appears that the appellant was ill-advised to file Original Suit No. 1553 of 1993 against the State of U.P. and others, challenging the imposition of tax and fine on the appellant as also the refusal by the Taxing Officer to waive the tax. The defendants State of U.P. and the authorities resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, appellant herein, had a remedy of filing an appeal against the imposition of tax and fine under Section 15 of the United Provinces Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1935’) as was then applicable and since the order had become final, the validity of the order could not be gone into by the Civil Court in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act 1935. However, no such issue as to the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court on this ground was framed by the trial Court. One of the issues framed by the trial Court being Issue No. 3 was as to whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit? The trial Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, there was an alternative and efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff-appellant, and on that ground dismissed the suit on 5th December, 2001.

5. The trial Court also discussed the other issues framed and held that the suit would not lie, as a result whereof neither any authority, Tribunal or Court could grant the decree as prayed for by the plaintiff-