Disposed

Ranjan Kumar Nayak v. R.T.O., Jajpur

Orissa HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/28095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging challans/VCRs and seeking fitness/permit, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of challan amounts and produce the driver's licence. Upon compliance, challans will be transmitted to the Magistrate and the vehicle released. Petitioner advised to apply separately for fitness certificate and permit.

What did the court decide?

Order to deposit 50% of challan amounts and produce driver's licence; upon compliance, challans transmitted to Magistrate and vehicle released; separate application advised for fitness/permit.

Ranjan Kumar Nayak Vs R.T.O., Jajpur — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO. 28095 of 2022

¶3

Ranjan Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Kadar Mohammad, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

R.T.O., Jajpur and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel for Transport

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

02.11.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to send the Challans/VCRs dated 5^th November, 2020 and 29^th August, 2022 in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.OD-22-J-0525 (Truck) to the jurisdictional Magistrate for appropriate relief. He further prays for a direction to the State Transport Authority, Cuttack to consider his case for issuance of fitness certificate and permit.

¶15

Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department submits that in view of Section 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Petitioner is required to appear before the Authority, who has issued the VCR and pray for transmission of the record to the jurisdictional Magistrate, if it wants to contest the case. The Petitioner has not yet appeared before the authority and made such prayer. After amendment of the MV Act, 1988, overloading is being treated rigidly. Since the Challans/VCRs amount is Rs.59,770/- and Rs.1,02,180/-, the Petitioner may be directed to deposit 50% of the same and contest the case before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for Transport further submits that in view of the Road Safety Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the driving

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

license of the driver of the offending vehicle is liable to be suspended. Hence, he prays that the Petitioner is required to produce the driving license in original of the driver of the offending vehicle for taking appropriate action.

¶19

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs that without prejudice to the case of either parties, in the event the Petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.29,885/(rupees twenty nine thousand eight hundred eighty-five only) in respect of VCR/Challan No.5^th November, 2020 and Rs.51,090/- (rupees fiftyone thousand ninety only) in respect of VCR/Challan dated 29^th August, 2022 before the State Transport Authority along with driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle and on deposit being made, the Challans/VCRs shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate for adjudication in accordance with law and the aforesaid vehicle shall be released. It is made clear that such deposit, if made, as directed above, shall be subject to the result of the adjudication to be made by the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶20

So far as issuance of fitness certificate and permit is concerned, the Petitioner may apply for the same to the State Transport Authority by filing necessary application, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

A copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this order shall be served on Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department for onward communication to the Opposite Parties.

¶23

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

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

¶26

s.s.satapathy

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Ranjan Kumar Nayak v. R.T.O., Jajpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Kumar Nayak v. R.T.O., Jajpur

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

Urmila Patra Vs Chittaranjan Jena

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Ramani @ Ramani Kanta Mandal Vs Rabishankar Swain

Sandipta Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha