1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.86466 OF 2012 (T-MVT)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.87232 OF 2012 (T-MVT)

BETWEEN:

M/S SAHARA TRAVELS

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

SMT. KANEEZ FATIMA

AGE: 42 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESS AND HOUSEHOLD

R/O H.NO.11-1-293, AGAPURA

HYDERABAD-500001.

…PETITIONER

(COMMON)

(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU-560001.

2.

DY. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

SEDAM ROAD,

GULBARGA-585102.

2

3.

THE ASST. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

HUMNABAD CHECK POST,

HUMNABAD DIST. BIDAR-585401.

4.

THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR

HUMNABAD CHECK POST,

HUMNABAD DIST. BIDAR-585401.

…RESPONDENTS

(COMMON)

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT

PLEADER)

IN W.P.NO.86466/2012:

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED

11.10.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE CERTIFIED

COPY

OF

WHICH

IS

AT

ANNEXURE-D

IN

APPEAL

NO.2/TXN/GBA/2012-13.

IN W.P.NO.87232/2012:

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DECLARE THAT THE SEIZURE OF VEHICLES NO.AP-13/X-4666

AND AP-13/X-6999 AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY

OF LAW AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

ON

05.10.2021

AND

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

3

ORDER

The petitioner, the owner of a stage carriage, has

filed this writ petition to quash the Order dated 11.10.2012

passed

by

the

respondent

No.2

in

Appeal

No.02/TXN/GBA/2012-13.

2.

The petitioner claims that it is running a

contract carriage in terms of a permit granted by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 88(9) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth referred as 'MV Act)

read with Rules 82 to 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989 (henceforth referred as 'CMV Rules'). The

permit was valid in the States of Andhra Pradesh,

Karnataka, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and was in

force upto 06.08.2013. The petitioner claims that it was

tendering tax to the Government of Karnataka as per

Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,

1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act of 1957') and was

operating the stage carriage regularly for 10 to 15 years

4

prior to the filing of this writ petition. It is claimed that on

21.08.2012 when the contract carriage was passing

through Humnabad Check Post in Karnataka towards

Mumbai, the respondent No.3 along with the police seized

the

vehicle

bearing

Reg.No.AP-29/TA-6222.

The

respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 21.08.2012

directing the petitioner to pay motor vehicles tax as

provided under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1957. The

petitioner

challenged

the

endorsement

before

the

respondent

No.2

in

Appeal

No.2/2012,

which

was

dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.10.2012. Being

aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that a reading of Section 3(2) of the Act of 1957, indicated

that motor vehicle tax under the said provision could be

imposed upon a vehicle, which is brought for use in

Karnataka for a period of more than 7 days but not

exceeding 30 days. He claimed that the stage carriage

belonging to the petitioner only passes through Karnataka

5

every day and moves to either Mumbai or Bengaluru.

Therefore, he contended that the vehicle is only on transit

in Karnataka but it is not brought for use in Karnataka.

He, therefore, submitted that the impugned endorsement

is thoroughly illegal and the petitioner was bound to be

charged under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1957 at the rate

specified in Part-A of sched