IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 30575 of 2024

Khizir Hayat

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharyaa,

: Ms. Sattwik Bhattacharyya

: Mr. Aashuthosh Bhattacharyya

: Mr. Aritra Roy

For the State : Mr. Pantu Deb Roy

: Mr. Panna Lal Bandopadhyay

For STA, Jharkhand : Aishwarya Rajashree

: Chandra Gupta Kamal

Judgment on : 09/12/2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved with imposition fine against him to the tune of Rs. 11,500/- vide challan no. WB 210956241211182832 dated December, 11, 2024, for the alleged offence said to have been committed by it, by violating the permit conditions and non-payment of tax. The writ petitioner is also aggrieved that upon his submission of the fine amount to the tune of Rs. 11,500/- as imposed against him, an additional amount to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been demanded from him without any

basis and reason and only arbitrarily. The writ petitioner is further aggrieved that his vehicle No. OD 09K 7677 has been unauthorizedly and illegally seized by the respondent no.2/ State Transport Authority, West Bengal, thereby causing immense prejudice to him.

2. Mr. Bhattacharya learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would say by referring to the annexed documents in the present writ petition that the petitioner is the operator on the inter state route from Keonjhar to Bokaro. 65 Kms of the total length of the route lies within the State of West Bengal.

3. So far as the relevant documents such as permit of the petitioner, registration of vehicle as well as its physical condition, insurance of the vehicle, counter signature of permit by the reciprocating state etc, Mr. Bhattacharya says that all as above are within the validity period and no infringement as alleged is apparent from any of the same. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner for violation of the permit condition is only unfounded and baseless, he says.

4. Mr. Bhattacharya learned advocate has further stated that the petitioner has duly remitted motor vehicles tax up to date, till February 24, 2025, to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal.

5. In such circumstances according to the Mr. Bhattacharya the alleged action on the part of the said respondent is only unreasonable and arbitrary thereby directly infringing the statutory and legal rights of the writ petitioner. He seeks appropriate relief to be granted to the petitioner in this case.

6. Mr. Deb Roy learned Additional Government Pleader is appearing for the State/respondent. Mr. Deb Roy relies on a notice of the Taxing Officer and RTO, Purulia, dated December 20,2024, directing the petitioner for depositing tax and additional tax for West Bengal, against vehicle No. OD09K7677.

7. Mr. Deb Roy learned AGP submits that the petitioner is dutybound to deposit motor vehicles tax and additional tax to the tune as calculated in the said notice dated December 20,2024. He says that in case the petitioner desires to raise any objection or dispute with regard to tax imposed, the statute entitles him to knock the door of the appropriate forum in a statutory appeal. Therefore, the allegations by the petitioner against the said respondents having claimed the amount of tax demanded as only baselessly, is seriously objected to by Mr. Debroy learned AGP, appearing for the State.

8. Mr. Deb Roy would further say with reference to section 16B of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, that the vehicle seized earlier is eligible for being released by the competent authority, upon furnishing appropriate bank guarantee by the writ petitioner, as per the said provisions of law.

9. Heard submissions, perused the record.

10. The petitioner has two fold grievances, that is, imposition of arbitrary and unauthorized tax amount against him and unauthorized and illegal seizure of his vehicle, by the respondent authorities.

.

11. According to the writ petitioner the no