Allowed

Rabindra Kumar Sahu v. Union of India

Orissa HC8 Jul 2022WP(C)/16820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the inaction of the RTO, Chandikhole in accepting an NOC for change of residence due to the demand for an additional fee under a rule amendment. The Court directed the RTO to accept the NOC without the fee. No undertaking from the petitioner is required pending the Supreme Court appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Direction to accept the NOC for change of residence without insisting upon additional fee under Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.

Rabindra Kumar Sahu Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16820 OF 2022

¶3

Rabindra Kumar Sahu Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Subash Chandra Pani, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel (For Transport Department)

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

08.07.2022 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the inaction of the Regional Transport Officer, ChandikholeOpposite Party No.4 in accepting the NOC for change of residence issued by the R.T.O., Dhenkanal in respect of vehicle No.OD-06-2819 (Omni Bus) insisting upon payment of additional fee for delay in submission of the said NOC pursuant to the amendment of Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 (for short “the Rules’).

¶14

It is submitted by Mr. Pani, learned counsel that the Petitioner is the owner of Vehicle No.OD-06-2819 (Omni Bus) registered under the R.T.O., Dhenkanal. The Petitioner applied for change of residence and the NOC (Clearance Certificate) vide Annexure-2 was issued by the R.T.O., Dhenkanal on 28^th February, 2022. As per law, the Petitioner has to submit the said NOC within a period of thirty days before the R.T.O., Chandikhole for change of residence from

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

the date of its issue. However, the Petitioner could not submit the same within the stipulated period and hence there is delay in submitting the said NOC before the R.T.O., Chandikhole. When the Petitioner approached the R.T.O., Chandikhole with the NOC requesting him to accept the same and change the address, the same was not accepted insisting upon payment of additional fee in view of amendment of Rule 81 of the Rules. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the amendment in Rules 32 and 81 of the Rules imposing additional fee has already been set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18124 of 2019 (Anirudha Kumar Dash-vrs.Union of India and others) and a batch of writ petitions disposed of on 13^th December, 2019, relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶18

“13. After considering the entire fact situation of the instant cases and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and after considering Paragraph-8 of the judgment of the Madras High Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that there cannot be different implications of the same notification in two different States. Therefore, to maintain the uniformity, by following the judgment of the Madras High Court, we also consider it appropriate to struck down the amendment Rule 32 and Rule 81 of the Rules amended vide impugned Notification No.G.S.R.1183(E) dated 29.12.2016 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi, Government of India, to the extent of imposition of additional fee only.

¶19

13.1 However, it is made clear that it will be subject to final result of the appeal filed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court. It is further clarified that if ultimately the Government succeeds in the Supreme Court, it will be open for the Government to recover

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

the amount of additional fees from the Petitioners from the date of implementation of the notification.”

¶23

In view of the above, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the demand of additional fee to accept the NOC for change of residence issued under Annexure-2 is not legal. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for a direction to the R.T.O., Chandikhole to accept the NOC issued under Annexure-2 without insisting upon payment of additional fee under Rule 81 of the Rules.

¶24

Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department submits that there is no material on record to show that the Petitioner had, in fact, approached the R.T.O., Chandikhole for acceptance of NOC for change of residence. He, however, does not dispute the position of law as stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that the matter is at present pending for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, however submits that if an application is filed by the Petitioner along with the NOC issued under Annexure-2 complying with other formalities, the same shall be considered by the R.T.O., Chandikhole in accordance with law. The Petitioner should also file an undertaking to the effect that, if Union of India succeeds in the appeal pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner will be liable to pay the additional fee as stated in Paragraph-13.1 of the aforesaid judgment.

¶25

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and the ratio in W.P.(C) No.18124 of 2019 (Anirudha Kumar Dash) (supra) this Court

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

// 4 //

¶28

is of the considered opinion that the R.T.O., Chandikhole should accept the NOC for change of residence intended to be produced by the Petitioner without insisting upon payment of additional fee in terms of Rule 81 of the Rules.

¶29

6.1. It is, accordingly directed that in the event, the Petitioner makes an application complete in all respect, to accept the NOC for change of residence issued by the R.T.O., Dhenkanal under Annexure-2 within a period of two weeks hence along with the original copy of such NOC, the R.T.O., Chandikhole shall do well to accept the same and do the needful in accordance with law without insisting upon payment of additional fee for delay in making such application. In view of the observation made by this Court in paragraph-13.1 of the order in W.P.(C) No.18124 of 2019 (Anirudha Kumar Dash) (supra) no undertaking is required to be given by the Petitioner, as submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel for Transport.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶32

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶33

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Rabindra Kumar Sahu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabindra Kumar Sahu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Mohan Jena Vs R.T.O., Jagatsinghpur

Susanta Ku.Sahoo Vs Mousumi Das

Binaya Ku.Majhi Vs Puspalata Behera

Rasmi Ranjan Sahoo Vs R.T.O., Chandikhol

Binayak English Medium School, Dhenkanal Vs Union of India

Narendra Kumar Sahoo Vs Gajendra Kumar Sahoo