IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4573 of 2007 FULESHWARI DEVI W/O SRI RAM KUMAR OJHA, R/O VILL. KAWALPATTI, PS- BIHIA DISTT- BHOJPUR---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, BHOJHPUR AT ARRAH 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-CERTIFICATE OFFICER, JAGDISHPUR, DISTT- BHOJPUR-------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 12.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Reason for the petitioner to approach the High Court is initiation of a certificate proceeding which was registered as Certificate Case No. 155 of 2005-06. A distress warrant has also been issued against the petitioner who happens to be a lady as well as owner of erstwhile truck namely, BR-3G-7761. The truck in question was purchased by the petitioner sometime in the year 1999 and was being used for commercial purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that the truck met with an accident on 23.8.2001 and badly damaged. The local police was duly informed about the accident by the husband of the petitioner. There is evidence in this regard as annexure-1 to the writ application. After the accident, looking at the extent of the damage and the cost involved in putting it on the road, the petitioner found it prudent to dispose of the same in scrap. He has also brought on record annexure-2 in support of the assertion that the truck was sold in scrap to one Bishwakarma Motors New Road, Rampur Hat on 25.6.2002. After the said sale the District Transport Officer, Bhojpur at Ara was informed of the development and a request - 2 - was made to cancel the registration. That was on 26.6.2002 but nothing came to be done which is obvious from the subsequent developments. Initially a notice demanding payment of road tax was made to the petitioner. The petitioner explained the position by saying that road tax has already been paid for the period 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2002 but despite the above fact the certificate case in question came to be filed and even distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner which is contrary to law. Contention of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents deserves to be interfered with because it is a fit case of non-application of mind by the officials in lodging the case without verification of documents and records in this regard. The stand of the respondents that no tax was ever paid is belied by the deposit slips which have been brought on record in reply to the counter affidavit. It is evident from the deposit slips that road tax from 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2002 has already been paid. There was no need for the petitioner to pay tax after the vehicle had been sold in scrap as the same was not fit for plying on road and the authority was duly informed in this regard. The stands of the respondents are that their records did not reflect all these facts. There was no proper information given under the requisite provision of the Motor Vehicle Act and all these have made the petitioner liable as well venerable. It is submitted that the petitioner has been harassed - 3 - for the tax which she had paid as also for the period allegedly after the accident of the truck and lastly its sale in scrap. It does not have behove of an officer to lodge the present case ignoring the actual facts. If the respondents had been more careful and looked into the records, the present case would not have been lodged. It is not a case where the petitioner had not met her obligation properly under the law. She may not have complied with the requirement by filing the requisite form and declaration. But if there is evidence on record to show that taxes have been paid upto a much later date when the vehicle met with an accident and was sold in scrap. The liability to pay tax of the truck is only till it is used on the road as a commercial vehicle. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case it is an abuse of the process of law in lodging the case and continuation of the certificate proceeding in the present state of affairs. The certificate Case No. 155 of 2005-06 stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)