Dismissed

Pinki Roy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Aug 2021WP/17126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the release of a seized contract carriage vehicle. The Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust available statutory remedies of appeal before invoking Article 226 jurisdiction, as the seizure was based on violations of the Motor Vehicles Act and non-payment of taxes under the Taxation Act. The Bench was not inclined to exp

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to appeal under the relevant Statutory Acts within two weeks.

Pinki Roy Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{P. NAVEENRAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17126 OF 202'l

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pinki Roy, W/o Ranjit Roy,^{Aged about36..years,Hindu, Occ- Business,} Ryo Xautdta Lane. Khdrpara;Baidyabati,^{Hugli,West t"nnu, a,u,"l..rETlTtONER}

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telanqana, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary, Transport} Department, T.S. Stcretariat.^{Hyderabad, Telangana-State'}

¶11

ir,5^-oeortv f ransoort Commissjoner^{and Secreiary, Regional Transport} Auihoriiv Sanoa Reddv. Sanoa Reddy^{District,Telangana State'}

¶12

a r[" oisirlct frinsoort 6hicerlOffice^{oi the Regional Transport Authority'} Sanqa Reddy, Sanga^{Reddy District, Telang-ana State}

¶13

1. ineilotor V6hicies"lnspector,^{Officeof the District TransportOfficer,} Karimnagar, on Enforc6ment^{Duty, TelanganaState.}

¶14

...RESpONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 ol lhe constitutionof Indiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} toissUeanappropriatewrit,orderordirectronmorepreferablyoneinthenatureof Writ of lVandamus, declaring^{the inactionof the 2"d respondentin not releasingthe} p"tiiion"rL Contract Cariiige^{Vehiclebearing-R-No.WB-29-B-7601seizedunder} i/ehicle Check Report^{No.467019 dated 30-06-2021by the 4th Respondentan_dthe} consequent order of^{the 3rd respondent in ProceedingsMemo No.359/43/2021} dated 01/07/2021^{as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of law laid down by the} i"rnf " High Court^{and consequlntly direct the- 2ndrespondentto release the} p"ti1on"r." Contract Carriage^{VehiileR.No.WB-29-B-7601,forthwith tothe} petitioner, in the interest of^justice.

¶16

lA NO:¹ oF 2021

¶17

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct} ir," i.o respondent to^{release the peiltionerscontract carriage Vehicle bearing} R.No.W8-29-8-7601^{seized under Vehiclecheck Report No.467019} OateJ 3O-OO-2021 by^{the 4th Respondent,forthwith to the petitioner,pending} disposal of the^{aboveWritPetition.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRIRAJANIKANTH JWALA} Counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR TR'ANSPORT}

¶19

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶20

PNR,J t'.P.No.l7l26 of 2021

¶21

-2

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.171 26 of 2O2l

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed praying to grant follorving relief:

¶26

"...to issue an appropriate tvrit order or direction more preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2,,,1 respondent in not releasing the petitioner's Contract Carriage Vehicle bearing R.No.WB-29-B-7601 scizerl uncler Vehicle Check Report No,467019, dated 30.06.2O21 bl. thc 4,r, Respondent and the consequent order of the 3"r respon(ient in Proceedings l,Iemo No.359/A312021 dated 01.07.r021 as arbitra{v, illegal, unjust and violative of law laid (iown b-v the Honble High Court and consequentlv direct the 2,"r resp(,ndent to release the petitioner's Contract Cariage Vehicle R,No.V/B-29-B7601 forthwith. to the petitioner in the interest of jrtrtice an.l grant such other necessary relief or reliefs as this Hon,ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case .,'

¶27

Heard Mr. Rajanikanth Jwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader lbr Revenue for Transport for respondents 1 to 4.

¶28

Petitioner claims to be the owner of passenger motor vehicle bearing registration number of West Bengal State, WB-29-B-7601, having seating capacity of 60 including the Driver. It \vas registered as Contract Carriage Vehicle in the State of ',Vest Bengal. According to the petitioner, his vehicle was engagecl to transport the skilled workers employed by M/s. Shapoor.ji pallanji and Company Private Limited, who is awarded contract to construct new buildings in the Telangana Secretariat, The .ehicle comnrencecl journc.r, on^'29.06.2O21 and at the borck:r che ck post ol' State of Andhra Pradesh, it obtained special pernrit valid from 29 .06.2021, to O5.O7 .2021 as contract carriage vehicle and proceeded towards Hyderabad. When the said vehicle reached Muthangi ORR in Sanga Reddy district, the {otor Vehicle Inspector (4e respondent) stopped the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle explained the purpose of carrying the skillec_ workers and

¶29

¶30

/'\ ^ i I li^\. i- ti., i:rtl i

¶31

shorved all thc documents. Ignoring the documents submittcd^by the driver, the 4r1' respondent seized the vehicle. Contending that in spite ol application submitted for release of the vehicle, the vehicle is not released so far filed this writ petition.

¶32

According to the learned counsel for petitioner, even though the vehicle is having all the requisite^permits and^{the driveroffered} to obtain temporary permit for one week and^pay the^permit charges, illegatiy the 4s respondent seized the vehicle.^According to the learned counsel, vehicle cannot be^{seized and kept in the} custody of the respondent authorities. In support^{of his contention,} he placed reliarrce on Section 2O7⁽²¹ of the Motor^VehiclesAct, 1988 (Act, 1988), and the Rules 448(A) and^{(B) of the Telangana} State Motor Vehicle Rules,¹ 989^(Rules, 1989)^{and the decision of} the Division Bench ol lhis Court in the case of^{Saleem Toursand} Travels vs. Joint Transport Commissioner and^Secretary R.T.A., Hyderabad and anotherl. Hc aiso^{conlcndcd tl-rzrtin} compliance of the^judgmcnl rendered by lhe^{Division Benchin} Saleem Tours and Travels (supra), Circular.^{Memo wasa.lso} issued by the Transport Commissioner on 04.07.2000.^According to the learned counsel, the seizure of the^{vehicleis contrary to the} provisions of the Act, 1988, the Rules made there under and the law laid down by this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that^vehicle seized on the ground of contravention of conditions ol^permit should not be detained for unduly long time and^u'hen trpplication is liled b1- the vchicle operator, the^{vehiclehas to be rcleasecl.He}

¶34

'^{(looo)'lALD50l (DIl)}

¶35

PNR,J tf.P.No.l7l26 of202l

¶36

¶37

also submits^{that even ifprosecution is initiated' the vehicle} cannotbeseizecl.andkeptinthecustodyoftherespondent authorities.

¶38

6 Alternatively,^{by referring to the provision in S:ction2O7(2)} of the Act,^{1988, he submits that the authorit-v- ought to have} excrcised souncl^{discretion b1' seizingthe vehicle permits'instead} ol detzrit-ring^{the vehicle}

¶39

7 . Learned Government^{Pleader submits that thr: vehiclewas} seized not only^{beCauseof the violationof the provisic'ns of the Act'} lgSSandtheRulesmadethereunder,butalsoonthegroundof non-payment^{of ta* leviablefor contract carriagevehicle'Thelevy} of tax is^{governedby the Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act'} 1963 (Act, 1963).^{He further submitsthatagainst levyingof tax} and/or^{penaltyunderthe TaxationAct' and the sei:;ure of vehicle} on the^{ground of violation of provisionsof the Act' 1988 and the} Rules made there^{under, both the enactmentspror ide remedy of} appeal,^{Without exhausting the said remecly'u'rit petitionis not} maintainable.^{He. further submitsthat theve Iissue was} considered^{by this Court in W P No 12936 of 2021 '}

¶40

From the^{vehiclecheck report, it u'as notict:d thatvehicle} was seized^{holding that it was not engaged to carry skilled workers'} butitwasusedasExpressstageCarriagevehicle,pickedupthe passengers from^{different locationsin the State of WestBengai to} unload at^{different locations in Hyderabad and there was no} contractbetweenthepermitholderandthepass.:ngersandthe passengers^{were not the homogenous group'It u'as alsoalleged} that petitioner's^{vehicleviolatedthe permitcond tions and that}

¶41

PNR) tr.P.No. t7t 26 ol 2021

¶42

¶43

¶44

there was no proof of payment of Talangana State tax for quarter ending 30.06.202 1. Thus, the vehicle was seized not only on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Act, 1988, but also on the grourrd of violation of the provisions of the Act, I^c)63, particularlv Se ction 4. Po\r'cr to seize under the Act, 1963 is traceable to Section 8 and pou,er to lely penalty is traceable to Section 6. Against seizure of vehicle under the Act, 1988, remedy of appeal/application is provided under Section 2O7⁽²⁾ of the^Act, 1988. Similarly, against levy of tax and/or^penalty, remedy^of appeal is provided under Section 12 ofthe Act, 1963. They are the statutorily engrafted remedies against alleged seizure of^vehicle and are effective and efficacious remedies. As consistently held^by this Court, when a person has an effective and efficacious statutorily engrafted remedy, the person must, avail^{said remedy} belore knocking the doors ol this Court under Articlc 226^{<>[ lhe} Constitution of India, and he canrlot directlt' invoke^{jurisdictionof} this Court.

¶45

9, Since the seizure of the vehicle is not only on the^{ground of} violation of the Act, 1988, but also on the ground of non-payment of tax as required by the Act, 1963, the decision relied upon^{by the} learned counsel for petitioner do not come to the aid of^the petitioner.

¶46

Learned counsel for petitioner sought to emphasize that the Joint Commissioner of Police has issued certificate on 26'06.2021 informing the public at large that the vehicle of the^petitioneris employed for transportation of the skilled workers of M/s.Shapoorji Pallanji and Company Private Limited to Hyderabad^for

¶47

P;VR,J tt'.P.No.l7l)( of202l

¶48

-6

¶49

construction of the Secretariat building^{and requested the in-} charges of en-route check^{posts to cooperate and give lree passage} to the vehicle. According to^{the learnedcounsel, in view of this} certificate petitioner is entitled to^{bring his vehicleto Hyderabad} carrying the skilled workers.

¶50

1 1. i see no merit in this^{contention.The Police are not} competent to direct the transport^{authoritiestopermit the} passenger transport vehicle registered outside^{the Sta:e to be plied} in the State of Teiingana without a transport^{permit. Further, it is} within the competence of Transport Authorities^{t'r check the} vehicle to verify whether the^{vehicleis in complianc: of the Acts} governing the field.

¶51

To ply the vehicle for the^{commercial purposesin the State of} Telangana, the owner of the vehicle^{in possession must comply the} provisions of the Act, 1988 and^{the Act, 1963. In the case on} hancl, cven according to the^{petitioner, he was tralsportingthe} skillecl u'orkers engagecl bv^{M/ s, ShapoorjiPallanji & Compan.r'} Private Limited from out side the^{State ol Telangana} 'o^{the State 01'} Telangana. What is filed in the writ^{petitionpaper bookis the} temporary permit^granted by^{the State of Andhra Pradesh. As can} be seen from the temporary^{permit dated 29.O6.2OU, it only talks} about the permit from the stage^{of Jaggaiahpetupto state limits via} Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam,^{Pendurty,Anakapalli,Rajahmundry,} Eluru, Vijayawada, Nandigama,^{Garikapudi and bat:k' Thus,this} permit is valid only on the route specified^{withir. the State of} Andhra Pradesh. Admittedly,^{petitionerhas not ol>tainedpermit} from the transport allthorities^{from the State of Telangana. The}

¶52

PNR,J W.P.No.17l26 of 2021

¶53

-7

¶54

temporary permit granted by Andhra Pradesh State cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is no where stated in the affidavit as to why petitioner has not secured similar^permit from the State^of Telangana. Ccrtilicate issued bv the.loint Commissioner of Police is not a sLlbstitute lor permit. At the most, it^{may enablcthe} petitioner to secure the permits.

¶55

Further, admittcdl)', petitior-rer has not^{paid the vehicle tax.} Assuming petitioner was transporting skilled^{workers of} M/s.Shapporji Pallanji and Company Private^{Limited, no decision} of the Government is shown to me^{where exceptionfrom payingtax} is granted. Taxation Act requires compliance^{of the provisions of} the Act to carry passengers and non-compliance^{can result in} seizure of vehicle and levying^penalty.

¶56

Various other submissions are also^{sought to be madeby the} learned counsel for petitioner. As the^{Court is not inciined to} entertain the writ^petition on^{the ground that petitionerhas an} effective and efficacious statutorily engrafted^{remedyof appeals,} Court is not inclined to express any opinion^{on merits.It is open} to raise all thcse submissions before thc^{appellate authorityand} seek reliefs from the said authority.

¶57

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed,^{grantingliberty} to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal^{underSection12 of the} Act, 1963 and the appeal/ application^{underSection 2O7(21 of the} Act, 1988. If such appeal(s) / application(s)^{is/are filed,the} concerned. authority shall consider^{and dispose of the samewithin} a period of two weeks from the date of^{receipt of appeal(s)/} application(s). It is made clear that^{there is no expressionof}

¶58

-E-

¶59

oplnlon on meflts. 'l'he cliscussion hcrcitr above is or 1r' to clccide on maintainability ol s'r it J)etitiorl u'hcn rrlterttirlir.t rt ntc<lv is available. Pending misct'llaneous petitions, il lrnr, shirll st:rttcl

¶60

i I

¶61

SD/. N.CHAIIDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I Go .;

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64