IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1888 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10510 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Madhusudan Nathani S/O Janardan Nathani R/O Bagha Bazar, P.S.- Bagha, Distt.- West Champaran .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar 2. The Certificate Officer, Bettia 3. The District Transport Officer, Bettia 4. Mohan Prasad S/O Late Chillar Prasad R/O Goria Patti, Bagha, P.S- Bagha, Distt.- West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : ----- ====================================================== 5 24-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Writ Court whereby it has refused to interfere with an order passed under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. The dispute is primarily between the appellant and the respondent no.4, one Mohan Prasad as to who is the owner of the truck in question liable to pay road tax. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition as well as the appeal for moving appropriate civil court for seeking relief against respondent no.4 and challenging the demand of road tax from him and its realization through Public Demands Recovery Act. Patna High Court LPA No.1888 of 2010 (5) dt.24-10-2011 2 In the facts of the case, the prayer made on behalf of the appellant is allowed and the writ petition bearing CWJC No.10510 of 2008 and this appeal are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to seek his remedy before appropriate court in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if an issue of limitation arises, the plea of the appellant on the basis of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be considered in correct prospective. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)