Advocates:
['HARSHVARDHAN', '', 'ROHAN THAKUR', 'ABDUL ALLAM', 'SR ADV', '', 'ASHISH JHA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W. P. (C) No. 4263 of 2014

Sumit Kumar...

..... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its

Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi

2. The District Transport Officer, Dumka

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

4. Sri Shyam Singh

----

Respondents.

with

W. P. (C) No. 4264 of 2014

Amarjeet Kumar...

..... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its

Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi

2. The District Transport Officer, Dumka

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

4. Sri Saroj Kumar Jaiswal

----

Respondents.

with

W. P. (C) No. 4268 of 2014

Vinay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its

Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi

2. The District Transport Officer, Dumka

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

4. Sri Kulwant Singh

----

Respondents.

with

W. P. (C) No. 4269 of 2014

Vinay Kumar Singh @ Vinay Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its

Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi

2. The District Transport Oficer, Dumka

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

4. Sri Saroj Kumar Jaiswal

----

Respondents.

with

W. P. (C) No. 4270 of 2014

Sumit Kumar...

..... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its

Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi

2. The District Transport Oficer, Dumka

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

4. Sri Saurav Saraf

----

Respondents.

with

W. P. (C) No. 4276 of 2014

Mamta Raj...

..... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its

Secretary, Department of Transport, Ranchi

2. The District Transport Oficer, Dumka

3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

4. Sri Saurav Saraf

----

Respondents.

2.

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

-----

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Harshvardhan, Adv. (In all these cases)

For the Respondents

: J. C. to G.A. ( W.P.(C) No. 4263/14)

J.C. to S.C.III ( W.P.(C) No. 4264/14)

J.C. to Sr. S.C.I ( W.P.(C) No. 4268/14)

M/s. Himanshu Kr. Mehta, A.A.G

& Shrad Kaushal, J.C. to A.A.G ( W.P.(C) No. 4269/14 &

4276/14)

J. C. to A.A.G ( W.P.(C) No. 4270/14)

---

2/14.03.2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

All these writ petitioners essentially seek decision on their

representations before District Transport Officer, Dumka in relation to tax

liability on individual vehicles, which they had purchased on finance

through Respondent-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. For failure to pay the road

tax liability, the respondent authorities of State initiated public demand

recovery proceeding under Bihar & Orissa (now Jharkhand) Public

Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

It is also evident from the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners and Respondent-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. that the vehicles

were repossessed for failure to pay the E.M.I pursuant to hypothecation

agreement. The matter relating to recovery is now pending before

Appellate Forum i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Dumka where the parties are

agitating. Fixation of tax liability, as sought for, by the petitioners herein

and cancellation of registration of their vehicles earlier registered in their

names from the date of seizure by the Financer are issues which at this

stage cannot be gone into. They are dependent upon outcome of recovery

proceeding pending in appeal.

In such circumstances, having considered the rival pleas of the

parties and the affidavit filed in three connected cases by the State

authorities, it would only be proper to observe at this stage that

petitioners are at liberty to make the instant prayer before competent

authority/District Transport Officer, Dumka dependent upon outcome of

the pending appeals in the recovery proceedings.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disp