Jharkhand High Court
Harendra Tiwari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:10882
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1760 of 2023
.........
Harendra Tiwari, aged about 58 years S/o-Gupteshwar
Tiwari, R/o 257 Bari Cooperative Colony, Post-Sector 12,
P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro. ….. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer,
Godda, Post, P.S. and District-Godda.
3. The Motor Vehicle Inspector-cum-Certificate Holder
Godda, Post, P.S. and District-Godda. ….. Respondents
………
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
…….
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
Ms. Surbhi, A.C. to AAG-II
………
C.A.V. ON: 20/03/2025 PRONOUNCED ON:08 /04/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant Writ application, the Petitioner has
prayed for quashing of the order dated 22/10/2022
(Annexure-6); whereby final order has been passed in
Certificate Case No. CIII 55/22-23 by the 2nd Respondent
without considering the objection dated 23/09/2022
(Annexure-5), filed by the Petitioner u/s 9 of The Bihar and
Orissa Public Demand Recover Act, 1914 (In short PDR
Act).
3. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the
order dated 20/01/2023 (Annexure-7); whereby review
application preferred by the petitioner u/s 63 of PDR Act
has been dismissed without hearing the petitioner.
1
2025:JHHC:10882
4. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are
that the truck of the Petitioner bearing registration no-
NL01G 8964 was seized on 22.01.2022 by the Motor
Vehicle Inspector, Godda and kept in Godda Police Station
for violation of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and Rule as
well as Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act along with
its Rules. After seizure of the vehicle of the Petitioner, vide
notice dated 28.01.2022, a sum of Rs. 18,17,950/- was
demanded to be paid by the Petitioner as arrear tax
including fine by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Godda.
Thereafter, Petitioner preferred an appeal before
D.T.O. Godda and during pendency of the appeal, the
certificate proceeding was initiated and the final order was
passed vide order dated 22/10/2022. Against the said
order, the Petitioner filed a review application under section
63 of P.D.R. Act which was also rejected by certificate
officer on 20.01.2023.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mandatory provisions U/s 4, 5 & 6 of PDR Act mandates
filing of requisition for certificate by the certificate holder
before the certificate officer. Section 5 mandates filing of
written/requisition in a prescribed form which has not
been done in the present case.
He further submits that in the present case, the
2
2025:JHHC:10882
certificate holder instead of filing a requisition for certificate
before the certificate officer, has filed a prosecution report
and just written a letter dated 22/09/22 (Annexure- 3)
apprising the certificate officer regarding the violation of
provisions of M.V. Act as well as Jharkhand Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act by the petitioner which is apparent from serial
1 & 2 of the said letter and no requisition for certificate has
been filed by the certificate holder.
6. Learned Counsel further submits that as per Section
5 of PDR Act, only after requisition is filed before the
certificate officer and when only the certificate officer is
satisfied that the demand is recoverable and the recovery is
not barred by any law, he shall cause the certificate to be
filed in his office.
7. Learned Counsel further submits that pursuant to
issuance of notice u/s 7 of the PDR Act, the petitioner on
23/09/22 appeared before the certificate officer and filed 2
applications; firstly Objection u/s 9 of PDR Act and
secondly application for release the goods (asbestos sheets)
which were loaded in his truck and seized by the Motor
Vehicle Inspector, Godda; however, order was passed only
on the 2nd application which was filed for release of the
goods. No order was passed in the 1st application whereby
objection u/s 9 of PDR Act was filed by the petitioner which
3
2025:JHHC:10882
is evident from the order sheet of the certificate case which
is at Annexure- 7. Relying upon the aforesaid grounds;
petitioner prays for quashing of final order passed in
certificate case as well as order passed in review
application.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that
even after black listing of the said vehicle, the owner of the
vehicle was noticed and asked to present his case through
his counsel or appear in person. Even paper publication
was made in the newspaper to pay the amount of
outstanding road tax and compounding.
Even after the lapse of the considerable amount of
time, the vehicle owner has not shown any positive interest
in paying the amount of the withstanding Road Tax and
mitigation to the Government fund, neither has any
evidence related to the payment of the said amount to the
Government Treasury, nor has he presented any letter
regarding the same before the authority. Therefore,
respondent after perusal of the material and documents
presented before him has directed the petitioner to pay the
arrear of taxes after compounding of tax amounting to Rs.
18,17,950/-.
He further submits that respondent authority has
rejected the review application of the petitioner after
4
2025:JHHC:10882
hearing both the parties and perusing the evidences
produced thereupon and has passed order; as such, no
relief should be granted to the petitioner.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the documents annexed with the
respective affidavits it appears that after seizure of the
vehicle of the petitioner for violation of provision of Motor
Vehicle Act & Rules and also Jharkhand Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act and its Rules; vide notice dated 28.01.2022, a
sum of Rs. 18,17,950/- was demanded to be paid by the
petitioner as arrear tax including fine by the Motor Vehicle
Inspector, Godda. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
appeal before D.T.O. Godda and during pendency of the
appeal, the certificate proceeding was initiated and the final
order was passed on 22/10/2022.
10. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that
objection u/s 9 of the P.D.R. Act filed by the petitioner was
never taken into consideration. It is evident from the
application u/s 9 of the PDR Act (Annexure- 5), it was filed
before the Certificate Officer on 23/09/22 but was never
considered.
As a matter of fact, pursuant to issuance of notice
u/s 7 of the PDR Act, the petitioner on 23/09/22 appeared
before the Certificate Officer and filed two separate
5
2025:JHHC:10882
applications; firstly, Objection u/s 9 of PDR Act and
secondly, application for release the goods (asbestos sheets)
which were loaded in his truck and seized by the Motor
Vehicle Inspector, Godda.
However, order was passed only on the 2nd
application which was filed for release of the goods and no
order was passed in the 1st application whereby objection
u/s 9 of PDR Act was filed by the petitioner which is
evident from the order sheet of the certificate case
(Annexure- 7).
As a result, no consideration has been given to the
application filed by the petitioner u/s 9 of the PDR Act as in
the order sheet itself it is nowhere stated that any direction
for filing of reply to the same was given to the Certificate
Holder nor any order has been passed rejecting the
objection u/s 10 of the PDR Act.
11. For this issue it is necessary to refer relevant
paragraph of judgement passed by this court in Sanjay
Singh vs The State of Jharkhand & others1
5″……………… 14. When certificate may be executed.- No step
in execution of a certificate shall be taken until the period of thirty
days has elapsed since the date of the service of the notice
required by Sections 7 and 11, or when a petition has been duly
filed under Section 9, until such petition has been heard and
determined.”……..
6. From the proceeding in the Certificate Case, as noticed above, it
is apparent that objection filed by the petitioner was not decided. In
1
2015 SCC Online Jhar 2058
6
2025:JHHC:10882
fact, the respondent-District Mining Officer did not file reply to the
objection filed by the petitioner. The proceeding has been conducted
irregularly, is apparent from the aforesaid narration of facts.
7. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that impugned
order dated 25.06.2013 is liable to be quashed and is hereby
quashed. The petitioner is permitted to submit objections
supplementing the objection already filed by him. The Certificate
Officer is directed to decide the objection of the petitioner, first,
within four weeks………….”
12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts as well as the
judgement passed by this Court in aforesaid case, order
dated 22/10/2022 (Annexure-6); whereby final order has
been passed in Certificate Case as well as the order dated
20/01/2023 passed in review application (Annexure- 7),
are hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the Certificate Officer, Godda, to pass
fresh order, in accordance with law after considering the
objection filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the
P.D.R. Act, 1914.
13. As a result, the instant application stands allowed in
the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I. As, if any,
also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
N.A.F.R.
7
[ad_1]
Source link