Partly allowed

N Venkata Uma Mahesh v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2023WP/6396/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an arbitrary tax demand of Rs. 1,19,770 issued by the RTO to a bus owner. The Court set aside the memo, allowing the petitioner to operate by depositing 50% of the amount, mandating an inquiry for the balance with a personal hearing. Related pending petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned memo set aside; petitioner directed to pay 50% of demanded amount; respondent to conduct inquiry for balance within two months with notice.

N Venkata Uma Mahesh Vs the State of Andhra… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.6396 of 2023

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶4

“to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned memo of the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings R.No.104/C3/2023 dated 02.03.2023 by levying an amount of Rs.1,19,770/towards difference of tax and compounding fee Rs.12,500/- in respect of the petitioner vehicle bearing registration No.AP04 X 0859, eventhough the said vehicle is covered by a permit and payment of tax highly arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and opposed to principles of natural justice apart from the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice...….”

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶6

petitioner is the owner of a contract carriage bus bearing registration No.AP04 X 0859 and is covered by District wide contract carriage permit bearing No.AP204/6591/PC/2019 valid till 11.11.2024 issued by Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Proddatur and authorized to operate entire YSR Kadapa District and the said vehicle is covered by all valid documents including the payment of tax of Rs.39,020/- till 31.03.2023 to the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶7

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, on 11.02.2023, the petitioner made an oral agreement with a marriage party to drop them at Adoni from Jammalamadugu. In that process, the petitioner tried so many times to apply for temporary permit through Online; but it goes in vain. When the petitioner applied for temporary permit finally, the system is showing to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,770/- to get a temporary permit for the said vehicle. Thereafter, he made an application to the 2^nd respondent for non-issuance of temporary permit and also requested to accept the permit fee of Rs.350/- for the temporary permit pending enquiry in the matter.

¶9

In turn, on 17.02.2023, the 2^nd respondent issued a memo R.No.:AP04 X 0859/A1/2023 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,770/- as shown over On-line, in order to obtain future temporary permits. Finally, on 27.02.2023, the petitioner made a written representation to the 2^nd respondent explaining the facts along with all necessary information, so as to enable him to ply the vehicle with proper documents and, in turn, the 2^nd respondent without appreciating the facts and circumstances, has issued the impugned memo R.No.:104/C3/2023 dated 02.03.2023 asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,770/- as shown over Online.

¶10

¶11

Heard Mr.E.Maruthi Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶12

On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the impugned memo, it appears that there are some discrepancies in the amount payable by the petitioner and the petitioner’s vehicle was also having District wide contact permit. The petitioner has also paid taxes up to 30.03.2023 and on the other hand, the impugned Memo was issued without conducting any enquiry and not even affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner which is admittedly in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶13

In view of the same, in spite of keeping the writ petition pending, this court feels it appropriate to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned Memo No.AP204/6591/PC/2019 dated 11.11.2024 on the condition of the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded amount of Rs.1,19,770/-, and on receiving said amount, the second respondent shall conduct an enquiry for the balance of 50% amount payable by the petitioner, by duly giving notice as well as an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be

¶14

¶15

completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by following due process of law.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶19

Date : 16.03.2023 PSR/KBS

¶20

¶21

269

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.6396 of 2023

¶24

Date: 16.03.2023

¶25

PSR/KBS

N Venkata Uma Mahesh v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Venkata Uma Mahesh v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vadlamudi Yugandhar Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. M.Venkataramana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Penaka Subhash Chandera Bose, Vs the State of Ap

K.Tirumaleshwar Reddy S/o Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

R.Narasimha Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh